Comment by mechanical_fish | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mechanical_fish | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

mechanical_fish

It appears that Stephen Gass is attempting to extort revenues.

Don't you think you should... rephrase that? I believe the term is "negotiate a price", not "extort revenues".

I'm no fan of software patents or obvious patents, but if ever an invention deserved a patent, this is it.

I'm not suggesting that this is a story of greedy companies, or of greedy inventors. I believe the companies when they say that most people aren't willing to pay an additional 8% (for a tool that will probably last a lifetime) to hedge against amputation injuries. I just don't understand that, is all. Check out this abstract from some epidemiologists:

http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/abstract.00043764-199610000-0...

They sampled 283 amateur and pro woodworkers in New Mexico and report that "5% of all respondents suffered partial amputations." That is a really big fraction. Obviously, I'm unlikely to saw as much wood in my life as a professional carpenter, but it still seems like my odds of losing a finger as an amateur woodworker are probably far higher than one in 100,000. They might even be on the order of 1%. Which, to me, makes SawStop a no-brainer at $80. I want the miter saw and band saw versions, too.

The price difference isn't $80. My Grizzly cabinet saw retails for around $1100 today. The equivalent Sawstop saw retails for over $3000. When he couldn't convince other manufactures to include his technology, he built a high-end saw to market himself. That still puts the extra safety out of range for us lower-end consumers.

And the danger with table saws isn't carelessly putting your finger into the blade. The danger is kickback, where the saw violently throws the wood your cutting off the table, which can knock your hands about in unpredictable ways. Bandsaws and miter saws don't kick back. You can safely put your fingers very close to the blade (although a little less so with miter saws which do tend to push the wood around a bit as the blade enters the wood).

Of course, I wish I could afford one of his saws. I once put all four fingers of my left hand into a dado blade on my table saw due to kickback. I'm lucky to still have them.

That still puts the extra safety out of range for us lower-end consumers.

Yeah, alas, the $80 is the imaginary price difference that might exist in a world where every saw buyer thought as I do, leading every manufacturer to leap at the chance to license SawStop.

If the premium really were only $80 I might spring for the bandsaw version too, though I've used bandsaws many times and understand what you're saying about the relative danger. I just like being paranoid, when I can afford it. Just because a mistake requires you to be incredibly boneheaded or absent-minded doesn't mean it won't happen.

I can't necessarily blame the SawStop guy for building high-end saws that I'm reluctant to afford. I'm no expert on saw economics, but I find it easy to believe that there's no way to build a viable startup by trying to compete against the likes of Grizzly on price.

I will say, though, that every time I contemplate taking up woodworking without a SawStop saw I run into sentences like this:

I once put all four fingers of my left hand into a dado blade on my table saw due to kickback.

And then I start thinking about all the other hobbies I could be pursuing. Piano! Knitting! Electronics! Machining! (Which, if you do it right, doesn't involve a lot of kickback either. Wear those steel-toed boots, though.)

> And then I start thinking about all the other hobbies I could be pursuing.

The feeling you get from taking pieces of raw lumber, shaping them, planing them, joining them (and yes shimming them), eventually turning the wood into something with form and function, through problem solving and love.

The feeling you get from seeing someone like and enjoy a piece of furniture you built as a gift.

Come to think of it, I think hobbies are about pursuing personal feelings. Not about the actual doing.

Even though, I've temporarily put woodworking on the back burner, I'm glad to see fellow woodworkers (coming-out-of cliche deleted). I still gawk at Woodcraft products. I still inspect the craftsmanship/joints of strangers' furniture (http://www.woodcraft.com/)

Oh, I may not resist the siren song of Norm Abram forever. We're just haggling over the price here. ;)

Perhaps 8% is a reasonable number to not lose your digits. Unfortunately, the customer isn't going to be able to decide (unless they buy SawStop's own) until Delta et al. license. and/or significant public pressure is brought (e.g. someone famous losing their fingers woodworking)

Another reason why companies like Delta et al. are resistant to the innovation is the imminent threat of tens of millions of damages in retroactive lawsuits (e.g. by licensing this technology now - it is tantamount to admission that they were negligent in not providing it earlier [at least in the years since SawStop was announced to the industry].

720k * 40% * (2009 - 2003) is a lot of potential class-action litigants. 2003 is the year when Stephen Gass stepped up his negotiations by approaching the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission about a federal mandate.

"Woodworking equipment produces approximately 720,000 injuries per year often causing severe psychologic and functional impairment. Responses from 1000 injured woodworkers to a demographic survey revealed that 60.5% of injuries occurred to amateur woodworkers; 42% of injuries were caused by the table saw and 37% of respondents reported amputation of one or more digits. The most significant causal factor reported was failure to use properly installed guards, but personal factors, such as fatigue and postprandial somnolence were also implicated. Twenty-seven percent of respondents required hospitalization for an average of 3.7 days, and 22.8% were treated by hand surgeons."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3498745

I don't know anything about retroactive lawsuits. But if people can sue these companies after they license the technology, why can't they sue them for not licensing and providing safety? It would sounds so ironic.

Am I missing something here or the laws are really in such a way ...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com