# SawStop vs Bosch - Table saw safety suit



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

Yep… *SawStop is suing Bosch…*

*Here is more information about it...*

Very interesting…


----------



## mramseyISU (Mar 3, 2014)

I'm not sure that tells us anything most of us didn't already know. I'm not going to blast sawstop for protecting their patent. Patents can expire prematurely if you don't defend them against any and all comers that resemble what you've done.

Now you can vilify the guys at sawstop for trying to get laws enacted to mandate their technology even though I can see why they would do it. $$$$


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Kind of thought this line is funny…

Craig Wilson, product manager for REAXX, said that Bosch is willing to license its Active Response Circuitry to other saw brands, and he added, "We would take any inquiries from third parties under consideration."

isn't that a big chunk of what Gass tried to do?
He started with a licensing agreement proposal… but the big boys said no, so he tried to mandate it, then went into business for himself.
I imagine the Bosch guys have much deeper pockets than Sawstop and a legal team, so they can grind this in the courts for years. (375,000 employees world wide and 70 Billion in sales last year)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bosch_GmbH


----------



## mramseyISU (Mar 3, 2014)

Bosch definitely has deeper pockets than sawstop. They've probably already figured out where the break-even point for them is in court before they punt.


----------



## tyvekboy (Feb 24, 2010)

First Gass developed his invention to help save woodworkers. That *WAS* his initial intention. The *BEST* thing he did was start his own company and produce the saw himself. The *WORST* thing he did was try to make this technology mandatory on other table saw manufacturers.

Everyone knows the inherent hazards of working around spinning blades. There is a *RIGHT* way and a *WRONG* way in which one interfaces with all saws especially a table saw. Break the rules and you invite disaster and accidents.

Now the Bosch REAXX table saw prevents traumatic accidents just as the Sawstop table saw does. HOWEVER, the way it does it is totally different. *If* the Bosch table saw stopped it's blade like the Sawstop table saw by slamming an aluminum block into the blade, then I see where Gass would have a case. However, the Bosch REAXX doesn't destroy blades like the Sawstop does … therefore I think Gass would make better use of his money in improving his technology instead of trying to stop another company who has approached table saw safety in a totally different way.

If I had to choose between the two saws, I would opt for the Bosch REAXX. However, until I am faced with that choice … I'll continue to use my Delta Unisaw.

For those interested … you can watch a demo on the Bosch REAXX. There are others you can watch … you'll just have to search for them.


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

> He started with a licensing agreement proposal… but the big boys said no, - DrDirt


Oversimplified version of what happened. Some companies did try to license it but the cost was too high for unproven technology with high liability potential.


----------



## robscastle (May 13, 2012)

Well I guess it been a few years now since the sawstop technology had been developed.
As for attempting to mandate it on table saws I say no way, if you want it so be it, otherwise what will it be next Jig saws too.

To have your expensive blade totalled mid project and have to recover when doing a job already costed out I again say no way!

Tools and I might add all tools for that matter are designed to do a specific task, in the case of most saws (and I include all saws) they are designed to cut stuff introduced to them, and they do it vey well including human appendages! 
Now imagine if it was mandated on all saws by federal regulations,... what our butcher shops would think of the idea.

Now if somebody came along with a better system that protected from mistakes and it didnt do any secondary damage who would you consider.

If I plane a nail I pay to repair the nick, a cost off set by normal wear and tear anyway unless you do it first up!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Now the Bosch REAXX table saw prevents traumatic accidents just as the Sawstop table saw does. HOWEVER, the way it does it is totally different. *If* the Bosch table saw stopped it s blade like the Sawstop table saw by slamming an aluminum block into the blade, then I see where Gass would have a case. However, the Bosch REAXX doesn t destroy blades like the Sawstop does … therefore I think Gass would make better use of his money in improving his technology instead of trying to stop another company who has approached table saw safety in a totally different way.
> 
> - tyvekboy


As I understand the lawsuit is over the 'flesh sensing', and not the blade brake. The 'sensing' is the same in both saws. But in patenting something, you also include "Alternative embodiements" and they are also covered, regardless whether your own final product is using that method.
It could be that Sawstop patented flesh sensing and included options that stop the blade (Sawstop) and alternatives that only drop the blade below the table. In that case Sawstop has a case against Bosch.

It is funny that Bosch system also requires that the blade be touched to be set off.
When they (Power Tool Institute) fought Gass… In April 2008 they told Congress that SawStop's braking system is:
*dangerous because it requires the user to come in contact with the blade before activating;*

Interesting that that is 'not an issue for the anymore….


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

Next up, SS sues touch lamps.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

How about touch screen devices Rick?
When I was at UW, a few years ago to be sure, we made a touch panel on the glass door on a trophy case because we we not allowed to add external push buttons for a student demonstration.
Touch sensing technology has been around for many years!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Next up, SS sues touch lamps.
> 
> - Rick M.


That may be how Bosch wins… if a Judge decides that flesh sensing (however embodied) is an invalid patent, because the application of technology already existed.

The first judge ruled that the case would be decided on a "basic English" knowledge. So how a 'shop person would interpret the language, rather than how a lawyer would twist what words mean (depends what the definition of 'is' is)
http://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/news/woodworking-industry-news/sawstop-patent-trade-case-against-bosch-wins-procedural-ruling

In effect, the ruling means that words used to explain the patents in dispute will be interpreted as a worker in a typical manufacturing operation might understand them, and not, as Bosch's lawyers asked, the "plain English meaning" of the words - an advantage to SawStop's case, according to analysts Eric Schweibenz and Tom Yebernetsky at IT337 LawBlog.com.

Whatever that will really mean.


----------



## CharlesA (Jun 24, 2013)

This has been hashed out in many previous threads:

http://lumberjocks.com/search_results?cx=017914489645407774653%3Agwwk-zif3wk&cof=FORID%3A9&safe=high&q=sawstop+bosch+suit&sa.x=0&sa.y=0


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

This article was dated March 17, 2016… I assumed there was a little something New in it… (?)


----------



## johnstoneb (Jun 14, 2012)

Nothing really new in it except a court date.


----------



## LoneRider (May 6, 2008)

Flesh sensing technology, that is amusing.

Capacitive/inductive touch sensing has been around for a very long time. As a previous commentator mention touch lamps. About the only thing of interest could be in electrically isolating the arbor from the trundle. It would be interesting to see the claims of the case though.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

Yes… and when it comes to Electronics, it's very easy to develop your own circuits to do what you want…
... making it easy to NOT infringe on Copyrights / Patents…

I think Bosch will WIN this battle… at least, I hope they do…


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Touch sensing, as it's name implies, means to be sensed by mere touch!
However, in a power tool like a table saw, wouldn't it be better to have *"almost touching"*, just a thought!


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

*oldnovice…*

It is *"almost touching"* NOW… aka changes in Capacitance... *get so close & BINGO…*

Have you ever seen a super car (convertible) parked on the street, you walk up to it to get a better look, and it starts Talking to you…??

*"You are getting too close to this car… Please get away"??*

You didn't have to "touch" it… *you just came close…* *Changes in Capacitance IS THE TRIGGER.*


----------



## BillWhite (Jul 23, 2007)

I will be VERY glad to see this issue finally die.
Now, let me get back to my Grizz 0444Z.
Bill


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

I will be glad to see, something like what Bosch has, as a common-day feature like a Fence is to the Table saw.


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

It's going to make the saws more expensive. Cheaper to just keep your fingers out of the blade. (I know, if personal responsibility really worked we wouldn't have insurance or condoms.)


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*Right on Rick M.!*


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

With volume, they will be cheaper than they are now…

... I still like what I have… the old fashioned way… That's because I'm Old Fashioned…  LOL


----------



## clin (Sep 3, 2015)

> It s going to make the saws more expensive. Cheaper to just keep your fingers out of the blade. (I know, if personal responsibility really worked we wouldn t have insurance or condoms.)
> 
> - Rick M.


 I think buying a tool with added safety features is taking personal responsibility, as is buying insurance.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Yes… and when it comes to Electronics, it s very easy to develop your own circuits to do what you want…
> ... making it easy to NOT infringe on Copyrights / Patents…
> 
> I think Bosch will WIN this battle… at least, I hope they do…
> ...


while Gass' tactics onthe mandate were distasteful - - I struggle with rooting for the 70 billion dollar a year German multinational giant crushing the Oregon Upstart.

I give him kudos that when the PTI members said no… he started up his own company, and brought the technology to market.
Bosch and PM and Delta, probably still wish that he never had, because it forced them into thinking about safety in a new way.

Guess i am more of a David than a Goliath supporter….even If David started out as a bit of a Douche.

This has the feel of Ford versus the actual inventor if interval wipers…. the Mutil Billion companies can just say F-U and your Patent… sue us if you don't like it. (took 12 years in court)

From Wiki - - -the parallel is really striking (to me)
Robert William Kearns (March 10, 1927 - February 9, 2005) was an American inventor who invented the intermittent windshield wiper systems used on most automobiles from 1969 to the present. His first patent for the invention was filed on December 1, 1964.

Kearns won one of the best known patent infringement cases against Ford Motor Company (1978-1990) and a case against Chrysler Corporation (1982-1992). Having invented and patented the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism, which was useful in light rain or mist, *he tried to interest the "Big Three" auto makers in licensing the technology. They all rejected his proposal, yet began to install intermittent wipers in their cars, beginning in 1969.*

Sounds Familiar here


----------



## devann (Jan 11, 2011)

Safety features built into tools are nice, but the ultimate safety feature is the user. I agree with Rick M.

I've managed to keep my body parts out of the tables saw for more than forty, almost fifty years. I think I've figured it out by now.


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

> Sounds Familiar here
> 
> - DrDirt


No, not really, because as I mentioned above, Gass wasn't rejected out of hand. It's somewhat interesting that you can look up a court case against Ford and become familiar with it but you don't do the same for Sawstop, the subject you are actually commenting on. The documents were made public in previous trials, go read them.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*DrDirt*, Bosch is not the company you think!

It is not the greedy corporate giant as most compaies we know. Quite the contrary as the quote from Wikipedia states.

Robert Bosch GmbH, including its wholly owned subsidiaries such as Robert Bosch LLC in North America, is unusual in that it is an extremely large, *privately owned corporation that is almost entirely (92%) owned by a charitable foundation*. Thus, while most of the profits are invested back into the corporation to build for the future and sustain growth, nearly all of the profits distributed to shareholders are devoted to humanitarian causes.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

*oldnovice…*

Thank you for the Bosch information… I never would have guessed it…


----------



## JADobson (Aug 14, 2012)

> *DrDirt*, Bosch is not the company you think!
> 
> It is not the greedy corporate giant as most compaies we know. Quite the contrary as the quote from Wikipedia states.
> 
> ...


Well, as long as Goliath has good intentions then I guess it's ok.


----------



## bonesbr549 (Jan 1, 2010)

> *DrDirt*, Bosch is not the company you think!
> 
> It is not the greedy corporate giant as most compaies we know. Quite the contrary as the quote from Wikipedia states.
> 
> ...


----------



## kelvancra (May 4, 2010)

Then the lighting people should look into suing Saw Stop, eh? After all, touch lights were around long before SawStop was invented.



> Now the Bosch REAXX table saw prevents traumatic accidents just as the Sawstop table saw does. HOWEVER, the way it does it is totally different. *If* the Bosch table saw stopped it s blade like the Sawstop table saw by slamming an aluminum block into the blade, then I see where Gass would have a case. However, the Bosch REAXX doesn t destroy blades like the Sawstop does … therefore I think Gass would make better use of his money in improving his technology instead of trying to stop another company who has approached table saw safety in a totally different way.
> 
> - tyvekboy
> 
> ...


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

> Sounds Familiar here
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ...


Just showing *other examples* of Billionaire Multinationals screwing inventors out of patent rights.

They (PTI) did reject licensing the technology he invented… it really is not a nuanced argument
.
Kearns (like Gass) invented something he thought would be a great invention, valuable to the "big car/tool makers" So his goal was to license it to those already in the industry.

The Corps said NO… (whether out of hand, or by pricing etc. -they still said no) Bosch like Ford, decided that INSTEAD of licensing..they would just go straight to implementation in production.

The fact that they make charitable donations of some of the profit, doesn't factor into whether that kind of behavior is wrong. Just as companies/Mine owners funding community centers doesn't erase OSHA violations in their factories.

The Patent issue will be decided… but who really sees any shred of evidence that Bosch "COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the sawstop work… just came up with this idea, out of the blue and drew it on a napkin one night?"

Or

did they work/tweak their design specifically to SKIRT THE PATENT of Gass. If they simply turned their legion of lawyers and engineers to work on how to find a loophole in the patent literature…. Then they really cannot then ride in on the White Horse."

I think too often there are LEGAL victories by deep pockets that don't represent what is "RIGHT"


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Thanks *Joe* at least your are a little more open minded with regards to Bosch!
My intention was not to imply that Bosch is a Robin Hood, just that they are a better company than most!


----------



## mramseyISU (Mar 3, 2014)

> Safety features built into tools are nice, but the ultimate safety feature is the user. I agree with Rick M.
> 
> I ve managed to keep my body parts out of the tables saw for more than forty, almost fifty years. I think I ve figured it out by now.
> 
> - devann


That's not what safety features are about though. Nobody is going to willingly stick there fingers in a saw blade while it's running no matter how stupid they are. They're there to protect you for something you don't see coming. Take a belt guard on a piece of machinery for example. Just like a spinning saw blade nobody is going to be sticking their hand in there while stuff is spinning but what about a guy walking by that trips? He's going to stick his hands out to try and catch himself from falling. Maybe he reaches out and without a belt guard instead of just smacking his face on the floor he looses a finger or a hand. Stuff like that is why we have machine guarding not because some moron wasn't smart enough to keep their finger a way from a blade.


----------



## devann (Jan 11, 2011)

That s not what safety features are about though. Nobody is going to willingly stick there fingers in a saw blade while it s running no matter how stupid they are. They re there to protect you for something you don t see coming. Take a belt guard on a piece of machinery for example. Just like a spinning saw blade nobody is going to be sticking their hand in there while stuff is spinning but what about a guy walking by that trips? He s going to stick his hands out to try and catch himself from falling. Maybe he reaches out and without a belt guard instead of just smacking his face on the floor he looses a finger or a hand. Stuff like that is why we have machine guarding not because some moron wasn t smart enough to keep their finger a way from a blade.

- mramseyISU

Where did I state that safety features were not necessary? While you stated that nobody is stupid enough to willing stick their finger into a spinning saw blade, I have a friend that was stupid enough to do just that because he was distracted while operating his table saw. A trip to the ER and stitches required. The guard on the table saw blade was useless because of the worker.

Again safety features are nice to have and common sense dictates their use. But nothing replaces the ultimate safety feature, or the practice of safety in the workplace, the worker.


----------



## mramseyISU (Mar 3, 2014)

See here's where I have a problem with what you're saying. Somebody who gets hurt because of a distraction doesn't willingly do anything, something unusual happened. If I sneeze and hit a deer or rear end somebody with my car, I didn't willingly do it, something unusual happened. It's got nothing to do with common sense just like all safety features. This has to do with preventing something unforeseen from happening. Now bypassing safety features is a whole other story where you can make that common sense argument all day long.


----------



## kelvancra (May 4, 2010)

Just a bit of food for thought:

When the inventor of the Sawstop technology tried to impose his product on me, he opened himself to my full retaliation, in whatever form the law allows. After all, where is the line? Going down the road of government intervention:

- People fall off ladders [more often than they suffer injury from a table saw], so we should START with making ladder levelers mandatory;

- People choke on food [more often than they suffer injury from a table saw], so we should START with requiring restaurants to cut food into smaller portions;

- People die of diseases that can be related back to bad eating habits, so those unable to exercise moderation should be required to produce a doctor's permission to buy all but the most bland diet provisions;

--[add your own item(s)]--

Next, consider the thousands of items about your home. The majority of them are variations of the original inventor's work, but for which he or she was, more often than not, paid nothing. That can be said the the Sawstop inventor's possessions too. In fact, and I may be going out on a limb, but I'm betting the Sawstop guy did not pay a penny for the mobile base idea, the table saw idea, the spliter idea, the. . . .


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

> That s not what safety features are about though. Nobody is going to willingly stick there fingers in a saw blade while it s running no matter how stupid they are. They re there to protect you for something you don t see coming.
> - mramseyISU


But that's exactly what they do. You can't imagine it probably because you are careful and wouldn't do it. There are people who are careless and injure themselves far more often than others. I know a person that is constantly getting her fingers slammed in doors. Once I saw her jam her fingers under a car trunk lid as it was slamming shut; no reason. She grabs hot things from the oven without a mitt. It would be easy to say she's an idiot, but she's a highly intelligent person, usually careful, and I think it's something else. I've know many people that received serious injuries in their workplace and all of them had one thing in common, they are reckless and prone to injury. Speaking specifically about tablesaws, the blade moves in a single plane and is very easy to avoid. Safety is a choice and 100% of TS injuries are operator error. (that said, I understand that as we age our mental and physical reflexes diminish, that means you need to take more precautions and not doing so is a choice. I've known plenty of men who were woodworking into their 80's and 90's without getting hurt.)


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)




----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

That is an impressive review of the Bosch finger saver.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

COOL video demo / Review on Bosch's new saw!

I LIKE IT!


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

An Update on the issue… *Judge found in favor of SawStop...*


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

*UPDATE... SawStop wins again... Bosch is NOT giving up...*


----------



## Jim Jakosh (Nov 24, 2009)

Alex, thanks for the video. I had never heard of REAXX. It seems that it needs to sense human or skin contact where the guy had to be touching the hot dog. So, it may not fire if a nail or aluminum label is on a board like the Saw Stop. I don't think Sawstop has a case. This is different enough to be another way of addressing the same problem and not copying theirs and selling it under another name. It is almighty fast!!

Jim


----------

