Home Depot has to pay inventor $25 Million for stealing his invention | Hacker News Reader

Home Depot has to pay inventor $25 Million for stealing his invention

palmbeachpost.com

In the year before the devices were installed, the company paid out $1 million in claims related to injuries caused by the saw. In the year after the gadgets were installed, it paid out $7,000.

This is unbelievable - he saved them millions, jet they were not willing to pay him the $4M he asked for.

It's a saw guard... Personally, I don't think they should really have to pay anything to an 'inventor' of a saw guard.

Link to the patent: http://www.google.co.uk/patents?id=PhR3AAAAEBAJ&printsec...

It's trivial and should never have had a patent granted IMHO.

Comprises of a couple of spring loaded clamps to hold the wood, and a cover which hides the blade and collects the dust.

wow must have taken a whole afternoon to think up.

> wow must have taken a whole afternoon to think up.

A whole afternoon in 2006, approximately 6,000 years after the birth of civilization and before anyone else had thought of it.

How can you be in any way even remotely sure that no one else had ever thought of it. That seems extremely unlikely.

I'd bet there are countless examples of spring loaded clamps holding wood in cutters, and countless examples of blade hiding/dust removal boxes. This isn't rocket science.

I think you mean "... and before anyone else bothered to patent it and try and get people to pay royalties".

He did more than "think it up in an afternoon". Its a specific type of saw the guard is for. He measured it all out, built one, tested it, built 8 more, and loaned them all to the Home Depot (probably for free) to show them that it would reduce injuries.

It did so magnificently, so they stole it like rotten little children.

I'm all in against "thought patents" like software and "business methods" where the inventor does nothing but think of a way to phrase a generic activity that many people already do, but the physical device patent is still a useful thing. In general it still works like the founders intended more often than it doesn't. Its friggin hard to build real things. This guy spent real time and effort perfecting this device that really does help people. He deserved better.

They didn't "steal it". They made their own.

We live in an era where the sole purpose of business is to maximize revenue streams.

And?

That IS the sole purpose of business.

It just so happens that when business does that, it has lots of other benefits - like making things people want, and giving people employment. But don't for a second loose sight of the goal: maximize revenue.

There are other entities, like non-profits, and co-ops, which may have other goals, but run like businesses.

Edit: I think I mis-read you. Was your comment a reply, or a complaint? If it was a reply, then I apologize for the downmod which I can not reverse. But if it's a complaint, then it's not a valid one - that has always been the goal of a business, our era is not in the slightest different.

The sole purpose of a business is to represent the interest of the owners. That almost exclusively means maximizing profits over the long term. This is a slightly different but important distinction.

I agree with Warren Buffet when he says there is more than enough money to be made ethically and without cutting corners.

Don't worry about the downmod ars, I got him.

Indeed, but that end does not automatically justify whatever means are employed, a key reason for the lack of well paying ninja jobs. In this case, Home Depot management's short-term greed has resulted in an extra $21 million of liability for the firm's shareholders.

In any case, while maximizing revenue is certainly the primary purpose of business as distinct from charitable work, it's not exclusive of other purposes which the founders may decide to pursue in parallel; it's just the easiest outcome to measure.

That IS the sole purpose of business.

That's the cynical view of this age. If you study history, you'll find that business was considered something that was supposed to benefit society and business owners. Society, the social good, came first.

huh? please elaborate on the specific portion of history you're referring to. If you're referring to any of the historical industrial revolutions, worker conditions tended to be terrible.

Profit, not revenue. Revenue would be the same regardless of whether they paid this guy for the saw guard or not.

Which getting sued for 25million doesn't do...?

I'm disappointed that I can't find anything online describing his actual invention, I'm curious to see what it is.

The system I'm familiar with is SawStop (http://www.sawstop.com/), mentioned here previously. (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1202766). But, I don't think that he's associated with them.

It's patent #7228773 (Radial arm saw safety top) and/or #7171880 (Dust collection for panel saw).

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=f_WcAAAAEBAJ

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=39J-AAAAEBAJ

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7228773.html

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7171880.html

Also this, which does not seem to have been granted:

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=fdWYAAAAEBAJ

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0225550.html

In all of SawStop's demonstration videos they use a hotdog to simulate a human finger. But surely at one point the inventors had to really see if their invention worked on a finger... I can only imagine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMD3agP5hv0

The guy does it in this video, pretty sure it was in a comment on HN a while back.

I suspect that a lot of saw operators wear gloves. I wonder how well it works for the gloved hand. Also guy on video wet his hand before the test, kind of cheating a bit.

Now that's what I call eating your own dogfood.

Impressive.

By the way, while the article did not mention this, I looked it up and this is a case of patent infringement. So see patents are good for something.

If you are pitching something to large companies and the thing you are pithing is something they can make in-house, then you have to get a patent. If it is cheaper for them to copy your idea than to pay you and you don't have a patent they will copy your idea.

If they copy your idea they are well within their rights.

If they copy your implementation they are not.

I worked at the Home Depot a bit in college, and before that worked in a meat department that used bandsaws which are strikingly similar. It's actually amazing how frequent someone losing a chunk of a finger is. If you've worked in that atmosphere for long, you know someone it happened to. If you've worked in it your whole life, you probably are someone it happened to.

I still remember getting barked at by a shop teacher in high school as my hand wandered towards where the band-saw blade is obscured but exposed in back. Essentially, if you were to hold that portion of the device like a caulking/icing tube pointed where you're cutting, you'd easily lose a finger tip.

Even then, it struck me as really bad design. (If you're shielding me from seeing it from in front, shield me from touching it from behind!)

Interesting. I wonder if he came up with this on his own time or at work? I assume Home Depot employees don't have to sign a PIIA.

Another article says that he was a "20-year independent contractor with the company", not an employee. He also had a patent on the device, so presumably he was pretty careful about IP boundaries.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/florida-inventor-successful...

the angry mob demanding the end to all patents championing the protection of small inventors is noticeably silent

Straw man. Few people argue that patent litigation never has an outcome that one would consider desirable. The argument is that the net effect is not a gain for society or most inventors.

The fact that it took what appears to have been a massive lawsuit incurring millions of dollars of lawyer fees hardly seems an argument in favor of the current system either; all he had to do to recover his invention was gamble with what is quite likely more than his entire life savings, if he lost. Wow. What a system for protecting the little guy that is.

Well this isn't a patent troll patenting 1) a business process + known software application or 2) something occurring in nature story

The angry mobs typically focus mostly on software patents.

Show me a software patent used to protect a small inventor, and I might think you know what you're talking about.

> "(Expletive) Michael Powell," the executive said. "Let him sue us.

"You cannot develop a reputation for somebody who gives up. You have to be known as a fighter for your rights. Otherwise, you'll never license anything...Even Thomas Edison had a tough time supporting and protecting his patents. He spent about $1.4 million [to defend his inventions], and this was around the turn of the century, when beer was a nickel."

-Jerome H. Lemelson

Arguably the most prolific American inventor (Walkman tape drive mechanism among his inventions)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Lemelson

Dealing with discovery (abuse) can be one of the most frustrating parts of engaging in litigation against big corporations on behalf of a smaller inventor.

Looks like some kind of spring loaded device to hold workpiece in place

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7044039.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com