The SawStop technology was offered to all manufacturers. It was refused on the basis of cost. Yes, Mr. Gass wanted compensation, but IMO deserved it for the time, effort and expertise put into the invention, plus the financial risks he took to bring it to market. He's not unique by any means in this respect, it happens all the time. He offered, they refused, and everyone was within their rights to make their choice. With the choice , one must accept the consequences, and I do not know what those will be.
As to things getting unfortunate over there, I am of the opposite opinion. It would be my guess that the manufacturers who rebuked the technology will now be clammering for it, realizing that the cost of the pending litigation will far outweigh the cost of adopting the technology. I have been guessing ever since Mr. Gass gave up on the resistance of the big three, and proceeded to produce his own saw (already a success in both sales and saves), that one of the top manufactuer's would buy him out. They get a successful product and a revolutionary safety technology. He'll get a reward for his efforts larger than the royalties would have ever reached (my guess, one or two hundred million $$).
In the end the cost of producing saws with this level of safety will come down with volume, and be a fraction of the cost involved in all aspects of the injuries it prevents.
"Just keep your fingers away from the blade. It's a dangerous tool with a lot of power. KEEP YOUR FINGERS A-W-A-WAY."
All of the complexities of this case aside, I never understand this argument. I do applaude what I think is your intent; to urge safety. But,I don't think many injured parties meant to get their fingers into the blade. I suppose that the typical user knows its a good idea to keep his/her fingers away from the blade. Yet there are thousand of TS related injuries every year. Carelessness and complacency account for some, but there are also unexpected things that happen, and nobody is perfectly safe all of the time. Belive me, I am a dentist and a musician. My fingers are especially valuable to me, and I am ultra safe with tools. But I have to admit, I have had incidents (fortunately minor, but could have been otherwise) due to momentary lapses, or circustances beyond my control. I'm thankful to have such an ingenius and effective safety device available, ablbeit as a fail-safe of last resort.
I know to "just keep my fingers away from the blade" so it is not particularily useful or comforting advice. If I cmae into contact with the blade for WHATEVER reason, I'd like the blade to stop. One might ask of the 700+ people who have had minimized injuries thanks to the SawStop technology, and those who have lost a finger or worse, if keeping away from the blade, or using a state of the art safety mechanism is better advice.
I don't like lawsuits and mandates, and am not expert enough to comment on those issuses. But to the general arguments either against or dismissing a highly effective safety technology, I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Some things just plain work. Seatbelts, airbags, helmets, life jackets, etc. To not use them is irresponsible. And forget the "it's my/their choice" defense, as we all end up sharing in the costs of insurance, medical treatment, litigation and so on.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by kaw.
Re: This is rich...
The SawStop technology was offered to all manufacturers. It was refused on the basis of cost. Yes, Mr. Gass wanted compensation, but IMO deserved it for the time, effort and expertise put into the invention, plus the financial risks he took to bring it to market. He's not unique by any means in this respect, it happens all the time. He offered, they refused, and everyone was within their rights to make their choice. With the choice , one must accept the consequences, and I do not know what those will be.
As to things getting unfortunate over there, I am of the opposite opinion. It would be my guess that the manufacturers who rebuked the technology will now be clammering for it, realizing that the cost of the pending litigation will far outweigh the cost of adopting the technology. I have been guessing ever since Mr. Gass gave up on the resistance of the big three, and proceeded to produce his own saw (already a success in both sales and saves), that one of the top manufactuer's would buy him out. They get a successful product and a revolutionary safety technology. He'll get a reward for his efforts larger than the royalties would have ever reached (my guess, one or two hundred million $$).
In the end the cost of producing saws with this level of safety will come down with volume, and be a fraction of the cost involved in all aspects of the injuries it prevents.
Re: You don't really
In reponse to:
"Just keep your fingers away from the blade. It's a dangerous tool with a lot of power. KEEP YOUR FINGERS A-W-A-WAY."
All of the complexities of this case aside, I never understand this argument. I do applaude what I think is your intent; to urge safety. But,I don't think many injured parties meant to get their fingers into the blade. I suppose that the typical user knows its a good idea to keep his/her fingers away from the blade. Yet there are thousand of TS related injuries every year. Carelessness and complacency account for some, but there are also unexpected things that happen, and nobody is perfectly safe all of the time. Belive me, I am a dentist and a musician. My fingers are especially valuable to me, and I am ultra safe with tools. But I have to admit, I have had incidents (fortunately minor, but could have been otherwise) due to momentary lapses, or circustances beyond my control. I'm thankful to have such an ingenius and effective safety device available, ablbeit as a fail-safe of last resort.
I know to "just keep my fingers away from the blade" so it is not particularily useful or comforting advice. If I cmae into contact with the blade for WHATEVER reason, I'd like the blade to stop. One might ask of the 700+ people who have had minimized injuries thanks to the SawStop technology, and those who have lost a finger or worse, if keeping away from the blade, or using a state of the art safety mechanism is better advice.
I don't like lawsuits and mandates, and am not expert enough to comment on those issuses. But to the general arguments either against or dismissing a highly effective safety technology, I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Some things just plain work. Seatbelts, airbags, helmets, life jackets, etc. To not use them is irresponsible. And forget the "it's my/their choice" defense, as we all end up sharing in the costs of insurance, medical treatment, litigation and so on.