Its very interesting this debate.
I think Mike hits on a point we all need to consider in this process.
1) Advancement of an industry and safety.
2) Patents.
In my time i have also had people participate in bodies that essentially have set new standards for kit i was manufacturing. At times some of those standards get put in place in manner where one can only view them as trade barriers to be overcome. Others not. Simply put consider the old days before the introduction of RFI suppression. Mom would put the vacuum cleaner on and the associated noise on the TV or radio would be the cause of an argument. Today that is a big part of the electrical regs applicable to sell a product in another market. Why, simply because there are components involved that cost yet add nothing to the functionality of the item without the reg forcing inclusion. So in my view the guy lobbying etc is part of our free market and the benefits have to be weighed.
As for the patent side one has to consider what patents do and are about. Back to the intent.
The intent is to encourage innovation and the disclosure of such innovation. The principle being that the price for such disclosure is that you get to secure patent rights for a period. The basis being that granting you exclusivity to your use of your intellectual property while sharing it is of benefit to society. Why? Because others get given a head start in being shown the direction of thought that you have originated from and to. This allows them to leap on it and try to advance the "art" further. Hence progress for all.
There is one thing that few are aware of. This exclusivity does not permit monopoly. You are expected to be willing to licence the use of your know how to all at a reasonable price.
The issue here comes at what that is and that is sometimes where the courts get involved. If you own the patent rights it is within the power of the court to force you to grant use to someone else if you cannot amicably settle on a reasonable price. The court can even be drawn into establishing that price. The price is most often a royalty.
In this case though we are dealing with a situation where the small fish is of little threat to the big fish. For were the big fish feeling the pain sufficiently the big fish would be forcing the issue of access to the patent technology at a decent price.
This is not the case and hence the reason I would presume that the little fish has resorted to using standard enhancement to force their hand.
Its free market practice.
Think about all the guys that should have been given proper protection from asbestos back in the day. Had the safety standard existed back in the day then maybe a whole bunch of people would be breathing easier.
Somewhere though it comes down to would you rather have a job or breath easy and then its up to the choice of the individual i guess.
The thing about patents is that normally the inovation centers around a feature that would economically enhance the product in a no brainer kind of way. In this case the argument only applies if one considers Mikes comment back to Dan about the merits of the saving of 3 hands and the associated costs and ramifications (and maybe we should really list them because its huge way more than what we see immediately) of the injury to three hands. One would think this is a no brainer.
One would also think that with the numbers that have already taken up the purchase of this product that the large guys would be chomping at the bit to get their hands on the technology and if the costs being charged by the patent holder are too exhorbitant that the large fish would be using their corporate lawyers to use the courts to extract a more economically viable price. But that dont seem to be the case here so the patent holder has been left with little recouse but to seek enhancement of the regulations through lobbying.
I would surely think though that if the regulation was enhanced and as a result all saws were modified to recieve this kind of technology that the price per unit would drop significantly with the kind of volume increase that would prevail. That would surely make the cost premium a lot less to bear and the econimic benefit overall huge.
Its time we all realize that insurance premiums dont mean we can claim at no cost. It merely means we are paying a price that the insurance actuarys asses is a viable one for the risk. But we are paying either way.
Surely one would expect that the insurance premium in a shop that has factored in the aspect and cost of using technology of this kind would see a decline indicative of the reduced risk and the evidence to support this argument is there in what Dan said.
Ok thats the lawyer in me out.
my 2 cents.
Man, Wal*Mart is running out of the old ones...better buy up the last few. I'll be going into the black market business for them soon.
