Looks like saw stop is finally about to have some competition. I'm hoping they can license it to other companies. It would be great if they could retrofit fit the device to existing saws. I would LOVE to put it on my PM2000
Bosch blade brake
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Regardless of the details of a competing system my guess is it will be challenged by Gass. Right now he has the market to himself. As soon as there is a competitor, it will hurt his volume and/or profitability. I doubt it's a coincidence that SS just introduced a jobsite saw - a direct competitor to the Bosch. I don't blame SS a bit for introducing the jobsite saw, I am just commenting they seem to have seen the competition coming. Gass has filed a LOT of patents. He is a patent lawyer. But the thing about patents is they aren't much good unless you have the legal resources to defend them. Lawsuits are expensive. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Bosch has enough money to fight if that is what they choose to do.
The only thing I care about is that Gass doesn't block the introduction of competing technology. As long as he is the only one with a system, the price will remain high. Competition always drives down price and improves technology.
Saving the blade would be nice. Cheaper cartridges (or no cartridges required) would be nice. But if the system only activates when the blade touches you, the key thing is to prevent the injury. Cost of medical care dwarfs the other things. I'm interested in what others can come up with but the key thing preventing me from buying a SS is not the technology, it's the price. -
There was a saw that had that type of non contact system called the whirlwind several tears back. But I don't think it ever went anywhere. At least I've never seen it being sold anywhere.
Originally posted by I saw that!The saws will be even less expensive to produce (and thus purchase) with a system that doesn't use an expendable cartridge and doesn't require flesh contact with the blade, for another reason:
With non-contact and no cartridge to worry about falsely tripping (and having spares handy), there's no need for the additional electronics/functionality to allow disabling of the safety feature when cutting wet woods as there is with the SS.
Also, with a non-contact system, the user can cut metal w/o disabling the safety feature.
This also means the saw would be safer than SS, since a safety feature that can be disabled is, IMHO, not that great of a safety feature.I reject your reality and substitute my own.Comment
-
Looks like MSRP is $1500 but I'm sure the street price will be significantly less. I believe the street price for the 4100 was around half of the MSRP. Vid of it also in action.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.Comment
-
Seems the least of your worries upon flesh contacting the blade would be saving the blade. But I do like the concept of the new Bosch system. Just flip the cart around and keep going (and presumably then order a new one for next time).
I'm kind of thinking that SawStop would probably prevent as large of a cut on your finger than this one, since the blade isn't actually stopped, and at 5000 rpm even a split second means the blade is rotating through your finger. But anything's better than losing a digit.Comment
-
I'm not sure if I'd rather loose a digit or have it sliced in half. I have a few friends loose a finger or 2 and heal nicely ang go on with their life, and a couple that had digits reattached that suffered with them for years and never fully gained their use back. All the re-attached quit their woodworking hobbies as well.Comment
-
I'm not sure if I'd rather loose a digit or have it sliced in half. I have a few friends loose a finger or 2 and heal nicely ang go on with their life, and a couple that had digits reattached that suffered with them for years and never fully gained their use back. All the re-attached quit their woodworking hobbies as well.Comment
-
Originally posted by I saw that!I expect we'll be seeing non-contact schemes from other manufacturers. They may not be quite like mine which requires no replacement parts at all and has user-adjustable proximity fields, but I think something similar will hit the marketplace soon.Comment
-
Originally posted by I saw that!One keeps in the back of his mind the travesty perpetrated against Robert Kearns -- patents intermittent wipers in 1964 and has to drag Ford through court for 12 years before finally being rewarded a relatively paltry sum. It is said the protracted court battles also ruined his marriage. David v. Goliath. A film was even made about him. Little has changed in patent law since. Good grief.Comment
-
Originally posted by I saw that!As I alluded to, I expect the big boys to have similar systems to mine in place soon anyway, and they'll likely beat me to the punch, as they've no doubt been working on theirs for a while, also -- and they have vastly greater monetary resources than I do (lawyers ain't cheap).
Indeed, one or more of them may have a system under development that's almost exactly like mine which they aren't talking about; there's no way to know w/o insider info.
If they get there first, then c'est la vie.
It's not an open-source project, though, so that's all I'm claiming and saying about it.
AFAIK, nobody has done it with saws, but there could be plenty of other people thinking about it, developing it and on the verge of patenting it. Who knows...
I do find your comment "If they get there first, then c'est la vie" puzzling. The US patent system was changed a number of years ago to "first to file". If they got there first, you would see a published patent application demonstrating that. You can apply for a patent on an idea, as soon as the idea is mature enough to describe (disclose).
If you have an invention you want to patent, you should create a description as quickly as possible and file a provisional patent application. (Relatively inexpensive). You then have one year to finalize the invention and file the formal patent application. (Here is where it can be expensive if you utilize an attorney, which is important to write patent claims that will protect you).
BTW, I am not an attorney, I'm an engineer who has had patents issued and have done patent searches and written patent applications and studied more patent claims than I could stand.Comment
-
-
Originally posted by I saw that!35 U.S.C. §§122 Confidential status of applications;
publication of patent applications....
(A) An application shall not be published if that
application is—
(iii) a provisional application filed under section 111(b)
Btw, non-provisional patent applications aren't published for 18 months w/o authorization of the applicant (except in special circumstances).
True, there is a period of time where one doesn't know if others have applied for a patent. And true, one never knows if a provisional application has been filed.
Originally posted by I saw that!Basically, normally the only way the general public would know if someone had already filed a provisional application is if the applicant informed us...
Normally, the only ways we'd know whether someone held a patent is if secrecy time limit expired, the applicant authorized publication, the applicant (or licensee) produced the product, or another person experienced a patent collision with their own application.
Equally ridiculous is that, because provisional applications are "not examined", the gummint won't tell you whether what you just filed for is already on the books. We could all file provisionals for the exact same thing, with none of us the wiser as to who filed first, and all of us could produce the same product with "Pat. Pend." stamped on it.
Originally posted by I saw that!Let's say someone sits on their provisional application for almost a year while perfecting the device in R&D. I file after they did, during their year grace period, unaware of their application. My time, energy and money are completely wasted and they automatically win as long as they file the full patent app in time (or a new provisional before I do).
So yes, provisionals are important as officially documented proof of earliest art, but are only a good idea if you: 1)have money to burn...
Hence, on the contrary, a provisional patent application is a very low cost way to establish your priority and secure your ability to obtain a patent on your invention.
Regarding excess claims fees, it is unusual that you will have so many claims that you'll incur those fees. You can file a thorough patent in most cases without exceeding three independent, or a total of 20 claims.
Originally posted by I saw that!My problems with filing a provisional right away:
I don't have that kind of disposable $$$, especially to gamble that someone else hasn't filed ahead of me.
Originally posted by I saw that!I have no wish to jump the gun with applications until a given design is perfected (to my satisfaction).
Originally posted by I saw that!I wouldn't want someone coming along, making a simple improvement upon my scheme, getting that patented and then pulling the rug out from under me -- it took them a good while, but this is obviously what Bosch wants to do to Gass/SS. Well-known examples of patented improvements that obsoleted original patents are the Collette and non-skid Gem style paper clips (serrations added) -- extremely simple yet easily overtook the original.
The Collette improvement came 17 years later - I suspect because the original patent had expired. You can maintain your priority by filing a continuation when your patent is issued and file later, improved version patents.
Back to the original post... Does anybody have an idea of how Bosch might be working around the Gass patent(s)?Comment
-
Originally posted by I saw that!I still see this as nothing more than a mod of the SS system with essentially the only major advantage being that it spares the blade -- and that, to me, shouldn't even quality as "non-obvious", since anyone who looks at the SS would think, "There should be a way to spare the blade.".
But as I said, best of luck to Bosch in skirting Gass' patents. I have a feeling they're going to need luck, better attorneys (and a friendly judge), or have already planned to pay license fees.
I don't know if Gass' covered this possibility in his later patents. There are so many Gass patents that I'm not THAT curious to investigate.
Bosch's approach may be obvious, and may not be patentable. They just need to be sure it doesn't infringe on any patents.Comment
-
Originally posted by I saw that!The non-skid Gem was patented 6 years after the Collette. The difference is serration location(s).
The serrated Gem paper clip seems so obvious after the Collette patent, I can't believe that it was allowed to be patented.Comment
Footer Ad
Collapse
Comment