Late last month, the US International Trade Commission has ruled in favor of SawStop in their complaint against Bosch. As you might recall, SawStop sued Bosch, alleging that the Bosch Reaxx table saw infringed upon their patents.
Here is the PDF of the ruling, issued January 27th, 2017. Investigation number is 337-TA-959.
Advertisement
That PDF also includes a brief history of court hearings and determinations throughout the case.
Here is the summary:
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued a limited exclusion order against certain products of Robert Bosch Tool Corporation and Robert Bosch GmbH, and a cease and desist order against Robert Bosch Tool Corporation. The investigation is terminated.
There is a 60-day presidential review period, during which time the President’s International Trade Representative has 60 days to either ratify or reverse the ITC court’s decision.
It is my understanding that the saw will be continue to be sold until the final determination is made. Right now, it’s still available for sale at certain tool dealers, and the replacement firing cartridges are still in stock at Amazon.
It is my understanding that, if the President’s trade rep does not reverse the decision, Bosch will no longer be able to import and sell the Reaxx saw in the USA.
Advertisement
They would be disallowed from importing, selling, marketing, advertising, or distributing table saws incorporating active injury mitigation technology and components thereof that infringe upon the patents.
Does this mean the Reaxx cartridges will be affected by the cease and desist as well?
Checking an ITC FAQ (PDF)
Upon issuance, Commission remedial orders are sent to the President who may then, within 60 days, disapprove them for policy reasons. Such disapprovals are rare. During this period, called the “Presidential review period,” infringing articles may enter the United States provided the importer posts a bond with U.S. Customs and Border Protection in an amount determined by the Commission. Similarly, activities prohibited by a Commission cease and desist order may continue during the Presidential review period provided the respondent posts a bond with the Commission. If the President does not disapprove the Commission’s remedial orders within the 60 day review period, at the conclusion of that period, infringing imports may no longer be imported and the complainant may seek to have previously posted bonds forfeited to it.
In other words, if you want a Bosch Reaxx table saw, you should buy it within the next few weeks, and make sure to stock up on replacement activation cartridges in case they are included in the cease and desist order.
Bill
Another nail in the coffin of competition, very disappointing. I also can’t imagine that Trump would ever overturn this ruling.
pete
Screw you saw stop. I’ll never give you a dollar and if i can i’ll make sure no one i knows give you a dollar either.
Francois Boutin
You can buy Reaxx table saw & cartridge in Canada.
The US ruling does not affect commerce of Bosch Reaxx in Canada.
Come and visit us in numbers!
Brad
You don’t think companies that invest in research and development of a technology are entitled to the fruits of their innovations? It’s the same as a copyright.
Yes, SawStop should give in a little on licensing and royalties, but industry manufacturers should have to compensate SawStop for the license to incorporate the technology into their products. The manufacturers are just trying to get away with something, and by asking the company
Patent infringement is how we end up with illegal knockoffs that cheat the innovators. Letting patent and copyright violations fly is how we end up with a race to the bottom, because unethical entrepreneurs can and will knock off anything and everything they can to fool people into buying their products for slightly less than the real thing–including using the same or nearly indistinguishable logos, brand names, and product styling. That race to the bottom kills off the original products in favor of the cheaper or even unsafe imitations.
Jon
They are entitled but they are the scum of the industry. They had trolls looking for people who have been hurt by table saw to validate their claim that all table saw should be illegal without their technology. Basically cornering the entire table saw industry to have to pay them royalties for their crappie safety features that totals a $100+ blade while bosch saves your fingersite and your blades…. screw Saw Stop. I will badmouth and discourage any Saw Stop sales to no end. They are the exact opposite of capitalism. This is the worst abuse of capitalism and they need to disappear. If you support saw stop your support those who want to end capitalism. #deleteSawStop
Frank Gerlach
Bull shite Jon, SawStop invented that technology and should get the credit and the sales from it. As far as SawStop trying to find people that have been injured by saw accidents where did that info come from? Sounds like somebody wanted to put the worst possible outcome on anything Sawstop did during the lawsuit. Bosh is a large German company and SawStop is fromOregon,USA so I think they should win this as I am a US citizen , where are you from, Jon?
sullivan504
Jon is absolutely correct– SawStop attempted to force their technology (at outrageous licensing fees) upon all other competitors. This is well documented and predates the Bosch Reaxx by quite a bit.
Austin
Bosch uses a different type of mechanism, and it’s clearly not a direct copy of the SawStop.
I’m curious about the decision, because it’s not a “they exactly copied my invention” type lawsuit. Does SawStop have a patent on the *concept* of a safety device? If so, screw them.
jtr165
From what I remember, they had patents related to how the device detects flesh, reduces false positives with wet lumber, and the mechanism that stops the blade. SawStop offers this patent package through licensing to manufacturers (this, literally, was the original plan for the entire company…the founder is an engineer…and also a patent attorney). Bosch didn’t go that route, and developed a different mechanism, but I think the issue is related to how the machine detects ‘not wood’.
I haven’t read up on it in a while, though, I may be off.
Austin
That would make sense. Thanks for the info.
Toolfreak
Yeah, Bosch is a German company, I don’t see the Trade Rep reversing this unless they are acting on their own.
Sucks that politics are going to get involved in this even more, but sometimes that’s the kind of thing that gets more people involved in fighting for what’s right.
BonPacific
The relevant patents all expire sometime between 2021 and 2024, so it’s not like it’s a permanent thing.
RC Ward
Trump? If it’s going to screw something up Trump will do it
The yeti
U guys can have our wonderful prime minister . He seems to like your country more than ours anyways . Let him give your money away all over the world. Looks good doing it .
Sorry thus ends my political rant .
If the patents end in 5 yrs . Is saw stop even gonna be able to make hay with this . 5 yrs for a product like a table saw . That rarely gets replaced . Doesn’t seem like it’s gonna help em much . Bosch can come right back after five yrs with God knows what . And it will all be kosher. Lawsuit done and dealt with . Bosch still big dog and saw stop possibly out of business
Brad
Trump is not a judge. It is not within his power to overturn a ruling.
Michael
Theft is not competition. Theft ruins innovation.
Bill
Yes, but theft is in the eye of the beholder. Much has been written in recent years about how the US patent and copyright laws are killing innovation. This case is a good example of that, and a good place to start is to look at what the inventor and founder of SawStop did to try and force his invention down the throats of the American consumer.
Ryan Price
So you praise the law that prevented him from “forcing” it down our throats, yet decry the laws for stifling innovation? The laws aren’t perfect, but if he’s following the rules of the laws as they’re written it’s hard to blame him .
firefly
I don’t see Bill praising the law that prevented him for forcing it down our throat. I see Bill raising two important point: first the patent laws are in need of a reform, second Saw Stop founder is a questionable individual. What’s lawful isn’t always what’s ethical.
I don’t have any problem with him suing Bosch. That’s between him and Bosch. I will always have a problem with the fact that he tried to force the consumer hand. While he failed doing so the fact that he even attempted it is distasteful.
T
@Michael
Perfectly crafted comment. Not much else to say.
The Ami
Second you on this one.
Characters of the owners have nothing to do the actual product.
Austin
Yeah, but this isn’t a direct copy of the SawStop. It uses a different kind of mechanism.
Do we give SS a patent on the concept of saving fingers? I wouldn’t.
Adabhael
This is pedantic, but I believe the US International Trade Commission is not actually a court. Wikipedia calls it “an independent, bipartisan, quasi-judicial, federal agency.” So this was just an administrative hearing (in front of an Administrative Law Judge) and the decision was voted on by the full commission of six, pending executive review. I think the distinction here is that this finding is not criminal or civil guilt, and so it does not entitle SawStop to compensation from Bosch, nor penalize Bosch directly: it simply prevents Bosch from importing the infringing product (hence the direction to Customs and Border Protection). The effect is similar, but the process is not necessarily the same standards and process we would expect in a court trial.
BigDan
Sawstop had a brilliant invention and though in the interest of public safety it should be shared with all, they still own the patent and have the right. When does the patent expire?
The Ami
They need to get paid for that investment of R & D, hence patent law.
Bosch, with their immense power could have been working on this for many years BEFORE Sawstop ever though of doing it. SS deserves every penny they earn in the FREE market place.
Bosch was shown that it can’t bully it way into that same market, by simply stealing a smaller companies product.
BonPacific
Best info I’ve seen is the patents expire sometime between 2021 and 2024.
MT_Noob
I heard that Bosch had a firmware update for the saws that were having false triggers. I wonder if that will still be available. I really really prefer the Bosch solution that doesn’t destroy the blade like the SawStop does. Bummer.
BigDan
I bet SawStop will have a version that doesn’t destroy the blade in its new and improved models this year or next…
BonPacific
Would make sense for them to put out a new version just before their patents expire, since the main patent they’re using is for dropping the blade below the table rather than stopping the blade.
BonPacific
I’ve read a couple reports that the blade aren’t actually destroyed in all activation. As the block is aluminum, you can take the blade out and have it checked by your sharpener, they can tell you if it’s still fine or not.
It’s understandable that SawStop tells you not to use it, there’s a major liability concern if it is a weak blade and something cracks during the stop.
MT_Noob
I’ve been on hand at 4 or 5 demos of the saw stop in action. While they may claim it does not destroy the blade, and you might allegedly be able to send it to a shop and have it extracted from the aluminum block, and then have any loose/missing carbide tips replaced. I still would not use it. Anything experiencing that kind of impact is not somethign I want spinning in front of me. I would expect all sorts of micro fractures and metal fatigue.
I much prefer Bosch’s drop away design.
Of course with either system, the best bet is to avoid it from happening in the first place and have that feature as a last resort that hopefully never is needed.
Austin
I do a lot of work in corporate R&D shops, education, and in maker spaces.
Those places do not have the luxury of reusing a blade. In your garage, you can do what you like. Can you imagine the lawsuit if your local community college woodshop reused a blade and it failed?
All those blades get hung on the wall as a safety reminder. It costs $150-$200 to trigger the mechanism.
Jim Felt
I’ve very mixed feeling about this. As I understand this SawStop first (very much like Tim Leatherman of Leatherman Tools and also a fellow Oregonian) tried to interest every major table saw manufacture in their auto stop sensor tech and were turned down. For years. “Too much liability” GM’s old line “Not Invented Here”, etc. etc.
So SawStop was forced (by conscience and existing capital expenditures) to resort to manufacturing their own saw.
Then and only then did Bosch (and I assume others secretly) do their own semi independent designs and bring out a competitive technology.
And SawStop would not let the slight and their upfront costs be mitigated by the interlopers to their self staked out marketplace.
I’m less unsure if their correctness after tapping this.
What do you think Stuart et al?
P. S. Most of my 12v and 18v gear is blue. So I’m not partial against Bosch. I just think they might be a bit hidebound for the US consumer market. Ya think?
The yeti
Well I have no idea . Your comment did get me to look up hidebound tho . Learn something new every day .
I’m curios as to how common table saw injuries are . I try to use a push stick when I am using my table saw .
I won’t be rushing out to get a reaxx . Being I’m canadian I imagine this ruling may not effect us here . However it might not be worth it for bosch to ship just for Canada.
BigDan
I can see a lot of northerners(U.S.) crossing the border for an illegal tablesaw and a case of maple syrup.
MichaelHammer
I never understood the draw or need of the technology. I’ve been in the buis for many years, seen dozens of saws run by dozens of people, the safety equipment never installed and often discarded and we all still have all our digits. Occasionally I hear about a guy who knew a guy who didn’t set up the saw properly, it shifted and took his finger. However we all have had bad run-ins with nail guns.
Kent
This technology is great for high schools and vocational schools. The insurance rates needed for a table saw to be allowed in a shop class were extremely high, but were dropped considerably if a school had saw stop saws.
BonPacific
If you look up the previous ToolGuyd post about Bosch vs SS, there were some numbers and figures in the comments there.
NCD
Personally I can’t see this helping SawStop. There will be many who will in fact boycott SawStop, my opinion only.
Ryan Price
Doubt it. Too important a tech to boycott in a production setting, and they’re required now at damn near every high school wood shop. Even if some boycotted, it wouldn’t hurt them much. I say kudos to sawstop for even bringing the tech to market. Would you prefer it had never been invented?
NCD
Of course not, I think it is and will be a stellar safety feature. I still think there will be people that won’t buy it.
Drew M
I’m perfectly happy to both boycott SawStop AND perfectly happy to buy a used Powermatic 66 from any schools in my area foolish enough to “upgrade”.
William
I wonder if Sawstop will license their technology to Bosch.
Toolfreak
That was the whole thing with Sawstop, they basically demanded that other companies be forced to adopt their technology instead of developing their own versions of it, and basically forced to license it.
BonPacific
They offered the license first, before making their own and/or attempting to get it mandated. The saw-manufacturers industry group refused to bite, saying they preferred plastic blade-guards.
John
The talk of patents killing innovation concerns things like “swiping left or right” on a smart phone screen, or how your screen image does a little “bounce-back” when getting to the bottom of the page. Imagine if every phone maker (other than Ma Bell, or whoever did it first) was prevented from arranging their numeric keypads in the standard array.
The Saw Stop technology is fundamentally different. You don’t need to be a patent lawyer to understand that. And without patent protection, major innovations like this would never get the funding.
I take exception to the notion that people should now rush out to buy the Bosch saw before it’s no longer available. How is that different than rushing out to buy stolen iPhones off the back of some guy’s truck now that you’ve just learned that this is the last truck with such a bounty?
How about supporting Saw Stop’s innovative product, or waiting until they license the technology to another manufacturer that you prefer?
Jim Felt
John. Logic is like all other traits and skills is easily displayed or at least rationalized via a Bell Curve.
(Personally I’m glad Samsung has begun paying Apple for swiping their touch tech in half billion dollar wires.)
And this is after all Al Gore’s internet.
No? ;-)~
Farid
Very well put. This is different than the “ambulance chaser” type innovation killing patent litigation going. I think people just regurgitate some news byte they hear without fully differentiating the facts. A a patent holder myself, I am absolutely puzzled and frightened by some of the comments and hatred towards Saw stop.
I was expressing, to s colleague’ my appreciation of the open source development that has spurred a lot of innovation recently in my field. Arduino and Raspberry PI are now sold and marketed to professionals instead of hobbyists and have become one of the top prototyping platforms. 3-D printing has contributed greatly in the same manner. However, Saw-stop’s technology, while can benefit everyone, was not released as open source, as matter of choice. We still have a choice to do what want with our property, don’t we ?
FYI: did you you know that the Journal of Medicine was the first open source collaboration and has contributed greatly to our understanding of medicine of over 200 years!
Bill
Fred,
A lot of the disdain towards SawStop comes from their early tactics in getting their product to market. The articles that I and many others have read, paint a picture of a company that, after failing to sell or license their invention to any of the big saw manufactures, then tried to have laws passed requiring that all table saws be mandated to have this new finger saving technology. For purely altruistic safety reasons of course. It is this legislative attempt that has drawn most of the ire you refer to, not the invention itself or the inventors right to profit from his efforts.
John
Personally, I don’t have a problem with the effort to mandate a proven safety feature like this. We’re not talking about a “better yo-yo”, where the string doesn’t pinch your finger quite as hard. We’re talking actual digits here (you know, like counting to ten!)
It really doesn’t matter that Saw Stop isn’t being motivated by altruism. Why would anyone expect that?
I want my toaster (and my lamps, and all other electric devices) to be UL certified — and I’m happy that certification is mandated by law. That’s the bar to clear in manufacturing these products. I don’t have any problem with flesh detection technology being the bar to clear for all table saws of the future.
firefly
So John, Do you own a Saw Stop? If you don’t then this is just a quick FYI, you don’t need any mandate before you can buy one. While you are at it can you buy one for everyone of us too? 🙂
For a safety feature to be mandated, all the commutative benefit must outweighs the cost. SawStop will destroy a blade for each activation, even if it’s a false positive. So that’s strike one. The cheapest model is more than 1K. So it’s also expensive to purchase, that’s strike two. Using a push block and riving knife already greatly reduce the chance of injury so alternative method are already widely available at a much lowest cost, that’s strike three. Other accessories such as a power feeder will take the operator hand out of the equation completely. So I don’t think that would be a wise choice to mandate it.
Jimmie
To continue with your toaster analogy…
Since charred-food is a carcinogen, let’s say I invent a smart-toaster that monitors the food inside and turns itself off as soon as it detects even a hint of charred-ness (hmm…come to think of it, maybe that WOULD be a good invention). I try to license this technology to various appliance manufacturers for $100 with zero success. So I petition the government to require that every toaster sold in the US license my technology at the aforementioned $100-per-device on the basis that it helps prevent cancer.
Should I be allowed to force consumers in the market for a toaster to buy my invention?
Davida1
A family member of mine invented something. and was doing quite well until a big company started competing and put him out of business. He has a patent, and took them to court, but big companies have lots of time, money and lawyers, which your average guy doesn’t. I am not a lawyer so I don’t claim to know who’s right but I don’t feel bad for Bosch
firefly
Farid,
Yes, SawStop should have a choice whether to give their intellectual property away or not. I wouldn’t and I don’t think they should. On the same token, we, the consumers, should also have a choice of whether we want to buy Saw Stop or not. It goes both way.
KL
This. Same reason I’m opposed to federal mandate of back up cameras. If you want it, fine. Don’t shove it down our throats.
Greg
Ironically, it is my understanding that Saw Stop initially tried to license the flesh detection system to all the major players prior to producing any saws and they all balked at the opportunity. So Saw Stop was created to manufacture saws with the technology. Once all the major players saw how well it was received and how safety conscious schools/manufacturers, etc. purchased them, the major players all hurried to produce their own. If there is any flaw in how Saw Stop proceeded it was probably the inventor trying to require their technology’s use via government intervention. I think anyone without the technology is a fool, but I also can’t see how anyone should be required to purchase a Saw Stop saw. Besides this little blunder, I think Saw Stop should be commended for how they have handled themselves against all the big players.
mattd
I think the issue is that the bosch system is very different in the way it stops the blade. the only similarity is the touch sensor which has been around in “touch lamp switches” since the ’80’s. I don’t see enough similarities to call it infringement. can you please point out where the majority of the similarities other than the prior art of the touch switch is. it may have the same outcome, but if it gets there differently then how is that ip theft?
BonPacific
The major infringement isn’t on the stopping of the blade, or on the detection. It’s dropping the blade below the table in XX milliseconds. Bosch didn’t infringe on the method of stopping the blade AFAIK, but they did infringe on the Patent for pulling the blade below the table.
Louis
The bigger issue I think everyone missed is why didn’t SawStop continue innovating and evolving their product. Maybe because they didn’t think they needed to.
Bosch’s replacement firing pin is a cheaper and far better solution to SS drop blade destruction which requires a more expensive replacement blade. SawStop didn’t innovate their “safe saw” concept further or branch out into other “safe” products. As a result they now have to defend a niche product with a very high price and little brand recognition. They are a single product company focused on “rent-collecting” on their single innovation. However IMO their innovation has already been surpassed by another better one. Only time and market forces will prove this out.
Does anyone remember what lack of innovation looks like. Here are some reminders…
Sony “owned” the Walkman market for 20 years straight. Along comes Apple with their button-less iPod.
Nokia & Motorola owned the mobile phone market with tiny flip phones with all them little buttons? Along comes Apple with their touch-screen iPhone.
Remember when AT&T required you to “lease” a rotary phone from company a month by month basis. No competition until the US Gov. finally broke up Ma Bell. Wow and did innovation take off. Suddenly we had cheaper phones, touch tone phones, digital phones, cordless phones with base paging & answering machines etc.
Jonas Salk discovered and developed the first polio vaccine. Decided not to file for a patent on the grounds he felt a “moral commitment” that human life was more important then personal financial gain.
BonPacific
Just because SawStop hasn’t released any non-table-saws, doesn’t mean they haven’t been working on them. There were reports/leaks a few years ago about them working on a band saw, but the issues with stopping that kind of momentum (the big cast wheels) was causing the saw to “jump”, causing just as much danger as the blade hitting your finger.
Remember that SawStop isn’t a huge company, a few shows them as having less that 50 employees (based on tax records I think).
Toolfreak
Lots of good points.
If Sawstop came up with a newer version of the tech that was superior to the Bosch, and overall was a better saw and easier to use. surely they would do better in the marketplace on merit alone. That’s another reason a lot of people seem to be against Sawstop, they actually want to prevent other companies from putting out products with an evolved, better version of a saw that stops before it causes a serious injury, AND they don’t want to make a better version themselves.
They just want their original, outdated product to be THE single version of the saw and the technology and that’s that.
That’s not how the free market works. At all.
Bart
This is the problem with a one trick pony company. Someone with deeper pockets improves on an idea they had, so they go litigate because they know they can’t bring something comparable out to market fast enough to compete.
In my mind, patents are to protect that exact design. I don’t believe they should be there to keep someone from taking a basic idea and improving upon it or accomplishes the same task in a different way. Patent holders seem to want to have a lock on a generic idea that locks out others from releasing anything remotely similar, regardless of design or implementation.
Jim Felt
The other view of what you just said is Bosch clearly did not want to innovate (AKA bring to market) such a product until someone else pretty much forced their hand to do so. Sounds like Blackberry and Nokia to me! So without some protection (patents do indeed expire and/or can be sold) why would anyone innovate much of anything? Just curious.
Toolfreak
That’s why you can’t patent a generic idea, you actually have to get specific AND present a detailed description on HOW your product does what it does – and you get a patent on a device that does that, in the way you say you’re going to do it.
The door is left open for others to figure out a better way of doing it, which drives competition, and innovation.
Billy
My understanding is there are two patents that were infringed, one expires in 2020, one in 2022. So, in theory, they could license the use of these patents until then. Then, it’s open game. This is not a permanent issue, simply a 3-5 year hiatus. Also, it only applies to the US. This is not the end.
As far as the cartridge, the detection is infringed, but I don’t know that that umbrella applies to the activation. So the cartridges may not be restricted.
ca
According to Wikipedia, sawstop is the reason we have plastic guards on every table saw. To hell with them!
Nathan
that, like many things on wikipedia is only partially true.
As I understand it Saw Stop helped create the new style guards that are on table saws today. The 2 sides independent moving spring loaded jobs. However the original guards started out as a response to OSHA
However I admit I could be wrong too.
Jim D
I also see no problem with how SawStop tried to get their product on the market in the first place. They wanted their product in the hands of the end user for two reasons; To make money (how can you blame them, they are a company), and to introduce the most effective form of safety ever on one of the most common wood working machines.
Do you think people we mad when the inventor of the seatbelt tried to get a law passed that every vehicle come equipped with one? Probably, but do any of us regret now having seat belts available in every single car?
And as far as suing Bosch, how can you blame them. Imagine being in SawStop’s shoes and fronting large amounts of cash to invent a product to save people from serious injury, showing the invention to all of the major saw manufacturers and getting shut down, having to create a table saw from scratch that can stand up to the pedigree of companies like Powermatic, and building your new company’s reputation over a decade, just to have a company like Bosch come out with an invention that is fundamentally the same. It’s kind of a kick in the teeth.
Also, it has been confirmed that the cartridges for Bosch will not be sold in the US once this is all finished so I would not personally go out of my way to buy a saw. They also have a warning that your phone needs to be in airplane mode within 15 feet of the saw. That does not sound like an invention I can count on working 100% of the time like SawStop.
Joe
Good and bad…sawstop shouldn’t ever force their patent on other company’s..bad……sawstop has a right, a pattern and big companies can’t just steal an idea,build a better mouse trap..and say tough shit dude…r and d is expensive….I like the Bosch idea better…but the way they did it was wrong….pharmaceuticals do the same thing ,they come out with a drug and a pattern,,it takes 7 years to copy it or make a generic…..they spent billions on r and d……look I’d love to have cheaper drugs that we need …safer tools ..but Don’t force me to own it or buy it….and because we pay more for it today,that money will go into r and d for a better tomorrow…….catch 22
Grady
YEAH! SawStop!
Before my retirement in designed and built custom machinery. I know of foreign companies to purchase machines and use them to “COPY ” our product and even use the machine parts to create casting molds.
I worked with a potential customer for four months and lost the contract to the cheaper copy. Four months later the “customer ” wanted us to come fix the copy. Request Denied!
JontheHammer
I’m also torn by this.. I understand the whole “I invented it, I own” logic…But…. This is something that can save a tradesman’s hand or finger. I agree, it’s usually a guy that knew a guy that knew a guy. But the danger is real. Bosch does heavy R and D which is a huge plus when going out and buying something that will last and with that in mind I can’t help but ask, If the ruling is upheld, can sawstop now take the tech to save a blade when the stop mechanism is triggered that Bosch figured out and make it their own without a counter lawsuit? I’m going to Canada…
Brian
This is sad news. Bosch built a better mousetrap.
Sawstop left a bad taste in my mouth after trying to make everyone license their technology. Not a fan of the company.
Whiskey and wood
Such a better mousetrap you can’t have your phone on around it!
Brian
It’s worked just fine every time with my phone in my pocket; in normal mode.
And really if you are using a table saw, you don’t need a cell phone on you.
chad
I have a 3hp saw stop on order. They build a good product with a nice safety feature.
Nathan
So didn’t the Bosch product have significant issues? vs the Saw Stop product – however being significantly cheaper.
And to be fair from an engineering design standpoint I didn’t see anything that was different about the Bosch approach other than I believe their setup was resetable after firings – but only once. I never used one but I vaguely remember there were limitations.
Otherwise they both used capacitance though the blade hub to setoff a charged brake into the spinning blade. So on a patent basis they were basically the same thing.
Yes I don’t like saw stop’s whiny piece about every table saw must be sold with our . . . for safety . . . . etc. As I feel it should be the operator’s right to choose. But I also don’t agree with letting another company use another person’s patent without making a actually different or actually superior product. In my eyes bosch did not do that.
So I can’t say I disagree too much. But don’t force their product on me when other products are just as suitable. OH and comparing saw stop to airbags or seat belts is a bit of a stretch. Public safety on public roads vs personal safety of you in your work space.
MT_Noob
Nathan, just to clarify, they both use some sort of flesh sensing (maybe capacitive or conductive either way is trivial) but the Bosch only uses the charge to drop the blade below the surface. It does not stop the blade from spinning. The Saw Stop has the additional blade brake.
(Personally I prefer the Bosch option, but that is just my opinion, I am not saying one way is right or wrong for everyone or if they must have any such safety feature or not.)
Jared
Bosch rules and sawstop drools!!
Fran
This saw stop technology is a nice feature but under no circumstances should it ever be “mandated.”
I think of it as a high end option similar to lane departure warning systems, adaptive cruise control, and automatic braking in cars. Many cars have these features now in the lower price range, not because they are mandated but because competition drives innovation and market pressures.
I think the saw stop folks would have sold the same number if not more saws if they made their invention open source and just asked for their name to be on that particular part of the saw.
As for me, I wouldn’t buy a saw stop under any condition based on the fact that you are limited to cutting only kiln dried woods and plywoods/composites. If you cut oily hardwoods, or wood with anything higher than about 15% moisture content, the thing will trip. The irony is, saw stop has an OVERRIDE switch where you can make single cuts on wet wood without tripping it. In those instances, it’s an “unsafe” saw like every other saw out there. After a few seconds it defaults back to “safety mode” and you have to repeat the process.
I’ll keep my powermatic, thank you…. 30 years running saws and I can still count to ten. Twenty, if I’m wearing flip-flops….
William Butler
So what exactly did Bosch infringe on? I’m not an engineer but from what I can see the cartridges are completely different, and the stopping method is completely different. Maybe the actual device used to detect the flesh is too similar? I don’t know.
If that’s the case I sort of understand the ruling. If not, well, I’m speechless. Does this mean that any flesh detecting tool infringes on SawStop? Will those lamps that turn on when you touch the metal base be the next device to infringe on SawStop?
Stuart
It seems to be multiple aspects of the idea and implementation of injury avoidance technologies.
William Butler
At what point do monopoly rules take over? Wouldn’t this make SawStop the ONLY company allowed to sell flesh detecting table saws?
Stuart
Until the patents expire, yes.
That’s not unusual in the tool world.
fred
You are right that there have been many other examples. Under patent-protection Fein sold the only OMT at one time and Festool’s Domino machines are currently the only loose tenon cutting machines. After a tool comes off-patent the floodgates sometimes open up with lots of variations on the theme or “better-mousetraps” being offered for sale.
While we may not like what was reported about the early tactics employed by the Sawstop patent(s) owner – it is nonetheless fair that he is being afforded the protection that his patents deserve. I suspect that if the tables were reversed – and Bosch had patented the idea first – the REAXX saw would have been the only choice until its patents ran out.
John Hooper
The outcome should be a safe work environment for people sawing wood with a machine that can rip through flesh and bone in a second. So, are there still people around who don’t use a push stick?
Well those people should head down to the hardware store and buy a Bosch before it’s to late!
But I am biased, I think the Bosch is the better machine. 😉
Joe J
This is a loss for the consumer. I don’t know why anyone would be happy about this unless you are a paid troll for sawstop.
Ken
The Bosch method of deactivate the table saw blade is very different from Saw Stop. Saw Stop is attempting to monopolize safety, competition and innovation. If there is no competition, they can charge whatever they like for the saw and replacement cartridges. Consumers always end up on the short end of the stick in these situations.
How many here would agree that Saw Stop should be permitted to inhibit the sale of all table saws in our country that does not incorporate their method of stopping a saw blade?
For that reason, I would not purchase a Saw Stop product and will continue being safety conscious when using my power tools.
ntlord
These patents seem very easy to design-around (although I’m no expert in this technology). I wouldn’t be too worried if I were Bosch. Each of the infringed patents requires very specific timing, which Bosch can just artificially change to avoid the patents.
If I were Bosch, I would do the following:
1. Create a design around of the patents via firmware. Just change the timings so the saw retracts in 15ms instead of less than 14ms. And have the saw retract 1/8 of an inch instead of 3/32.
2. Approach customs by themselves and convince them to let them import again
3. Stockpile the crap out of these machines before the presidential review period expires.
4. Throw up middle fingers to Sawstop, and let them spend another few mil trying to win an enforcement proceeding at the ITC.
Jim Felt
Wow. Vindictive much?
You seen to both be unaware that SawStop tried for years to sell all the major table saw manufacturers on their version of a safer saw and was categorically turned down (for liability reasons er al) and that the very concept of patents is what’s responsible for investing in innovation. An inventors ROI is only fair. That’s why Harbor Freight is cheaper. Cheap labor and no R & R.
As for skirting the actual patent AFTER seeing in the marketplace there is indeed a market for the product as Bosch has done simply mirrors Samsung repeatedly copying the original iPhone’s success and now already paying a half billion settlement to Apple for doing so. No creativity. No guts. No vision. Just simply copying and hoping to find a legal technicality to squeeze by through the court system. AKA “lack of innovation”.
That said I too like Bosch’s blade stopping tech. But not their corporate attitude. Might as well be KKR or Bain. Sad.
Jim Felt
Sorry. Hard to proofread on my iPhone 7 in bed. Darn.
KKR
When filing for a patent, one of the objectives is to block potential innovation of others by encasing the original idea, with every possible variant of said idea. Broadening the scope of a patent to be all inclusive does hinder the innovation of others legitimately trying to market a better mouse trap. Unfortunately it may be legal, however limits the creativity of others, and ultimately our choices as consumers, and allows price fixing.
Saw Stop’s mouse trap: Use electrical capacitance to trigger saw blade to collide head on with a chuck of aluminum, stop the rotation of blade violently, destroy both the cartridge and blade simultaneously. System requires two different cartridges, one type for single blade, another for dado.
Bosch mouse trap: Use electrical capacitance to trigger high a pressure cartridge to violently drop the blade below deck, brake the blade to stop rotation, replace the cartridge, and saw blade is not damaged in the process. Systems uses the same cartridge for both single and dado blades.
Applying capacitance to stop machine mechanisms and as safety device is not new technology in itself. Possibly applying it to a table saw is?
Jim Felt
No idea about past useage. Plus I really like the now unavailable in the US Bosch solution better. But they, and most likely everyone else too, were offered the idea and declined.
Plus Bosch of all international manufacturers should have long ago brought their own idea forward. Just think of the internal research capacity they must have. (Hmmm. Maybe they’re like GM)? Are/were they afraid of retroactive lawsuits? I dunno. It would make a great read if if ever sees the light of day though. No?
Peter
KKR – you’ve got it completely backwards. The point of patent law is to encourage innovation by protecting inventor investment of time, expertise and resources from those who would steal their ideas and designs after the fact.
No one in their right mind would ever bother to create anything new – the very definition innovation – if all their work could simply be stolen and put into use by some person, company or government without any compensation, acknowledgement or redress:
1) Do you work for free?
2) Is the knowledge and expertise that you’ve worked hard to develop worth something?
3) Would you give away a product that you created and worked on for years to some individual or corporation so they could profit from your efforts and talents without you getting anything in return?
4) Do you seriously think that stealing other people’s work with no legal or compensatory recourse actually encourages innovation?
Patents are held for a determinate period of time – THEY EXPIRE – so that those who were granted the patents – THE INNOVATORS – can recuperate their development costs and, more importantly, be sufficiently rewarded for their innovations. It’s what we called an incentive to come up with ideas and things that are innovative. Stealing someone else’s work with impunity is what we call a disincentive to innovate.
And when Steve Gass’s SawStop patent expires in 2021, guess which corporate players in the power tool industry will be falling all over themselves pushing out table saws with SawStop technology as fast as they can produce them? That’s right, the same industry group who for over a decade lobbied against SawStop in Congress because the technology was “dangerous,” “unproven,” “too expensive,” “provides a false sense of security to the user,” “will end the table-saw marketplace as we know it…”
Bosch and the rest of the power tool industry can wait until 2021 to get their greedy little hands on Gass’s patented invention. They had their chance to cash in on this technology over a decade ago, but they said NO to Steve Gass. In the meantime thousands of amputations every year and billions of dollars in medical costs will continue because of corporate greed – well done, PTI!
KKR
Peter,
Your points are valid and from a different perspective.
I am also inventor, and have applied for patents past and present. I am a small fry, and understand the only way to stay ahead of the big players is to continuously come out with new products and innovations. Patents are for individuals and companies that can afford protectionism.
A strategy used to block others from entering the market. Just about when their patent is about to expire 2021, they will come out with an slightly different addendum to the existing patent, and thus extend the life of the original patent indirectly. And so it goes.
From my perspective, the Bosch technology is significantly different and improved. The blade is not destroyed, same detonator cartridge works with plain or dado blades, and faster recovery time. None of these features are available in the Saw Stop solution. Woodworkers are being deprived of otherwise excellent innovations and enhancements.
There are literally hundreds of patents describing methods for dropping a blade below a surface. Using voltage drop in conjunction with time to detect a condition is common knowledge.
Consumers should be given the choice to purchase Saw Stop or Bosch based on quality, innovation, performance, service and price. The courts ruled in favor or Saw Stop and consumers are the losers.
Pete
Woodworkers have been deprived of having the choices you speak of because PTI and their power-tool-manufacturing members said “NO” to Gass back in the early 2000s when he offered to license the technology to manufacturers, e.g., Ryobi, Delta, Black & Decker, Emerson, Craftsman and others.
The entire power tool industry rejected Gass’s invention because they saw the technology as a potential litigation hole from the consumer side of the aisle – NOT from Gass – thus effectively removing it from the public domain at the time: if manufacturers don’t utilize a technology that’s been offered to them, consumers have absolutely no choice to take advantage of it. And this has been the standard tactic by PTI and their manufacturing members ever since.
So Gass did what any good entrepreneur would do – he started his own company. And like any other rational and responsible inventor/business person, he’s protecting his investments, products and patents from those who would rather steal the design than pay for its use.
The power tool industry has been trying to keep this technology out of consumers’ hands (no pun intended) since 2001 because their concerns are NOT for consumer safety but for covering their own legal butts.
Ask yourself why PTI and their members almost never comment on or grant interviews about SawStop technology or the CPSC hearings on mandatory adoption of this technology, which have been going on since 2003 due to lobbying pushback in Congress by PTI for nearly 15 years!
I don’t expect to change a single mind on this issue, and I honestly don’t care to, but the other side of this story is being systematically ignored and misrepresented by industry players. Even when woodworking magazines take note of the issue, like Fine Woodworking, their “reporting” comes across as if it came directly from PTI’s PR department.
PTI is doing exactly what the automobile industry did back in the 60s when seatbelt technology came to the fore and regulation started to emerge – they didn’t want the technology or the regulation. And the same type of reasoning cited back then for rejecting seat-belt technology continues to be cited by PTI for blocking SawStop technology. Perhaps we need a famous celebrity woodworker to cut off his hand in a table saw accident before industry interests are rejected and this safety issue is finally taken seriously – let’s hope such drastic and unnecessary events won’t become necessary.
Thank you for the amicable reply, KKR!
TAM
I’ve seen allot of reviews and talk about this issue between SS and Bosch. I agree no company should infringe on others patents. However, how does Bosch infringe on SS patents when the mechanisms for dropping the blade are very different? SS uses a piece of aluminum for the blade to dig into, thereby stopping the blade after dropping, and Bosch uses an activated piston to just drop the blade. The only similarity is the flesh activation aspect. Since when can the conductance of electricity through the human body be patent-able, for what ever reason, which I feel this is all about. The firmware used can be altered to a degree by anyone who can write simple computer code to differ from any patented code to tell the device to do what that person wants it to do, the only difference being, the micro chips used to provide the quick response for the device, could this have been the infringement? That’s a pretty quick response when you talk about milliseconds ( I wish my computer was that fast). As for the blade dropping, is this not the same as lowering with the hand wheel but with the exception that this is done electronically by detecting flesh. I’m no engineer, but to me, as a layman, wish these companies would give some leeway and not take steps to stretch the laws or regulations to the n’th degree to prove they are mightier than others, especially when it comes to safety and who they get to represent them, I think the lawyers made good on this one. The US has always had protectionist policies, since only the importation of these saws and cartridges have been disallowed, does this mean that if they were manufactured in the US, the outcome would have been different? Not sure why the order would also not allow for the manufacture of these Bosch products in the US, makes me wonder!
This determination came at a bad time for all consumers of Bosch products, Trump is your prez and he will most likely drive your economy into the ground by siding with US manufacterers like SS. Every time the US does something like this, they never take into consideration how it will affect other countries, only how it affects them, the US only think of themselves!! I’m proud to be a canuck, the US can take their policies and multi million $ lawsuits ( for a hot coffee) and totally shove it …….! Trump can cut all the US soft wood lumber he wants with a SS and see how many blades he need s to replace along with cartridges ….. Buy Canadian, better soft wood and cuts like a dream with a Bosch!!!!
Glad the Reaxx is still available in Canada!!!!