I think my point in posting the article which by the way i found through the Popular Woodworking Editors blog, was that when you first read the court case saga its sounds like well "The guy using the saw should have taken care its his fault." and thats how i feel.
However when you consider the article and more background and safety then you start to say well maybe there is a point to the court case. Not so much in terms of the settlement (unfortunately its neccessary to put a sticker price to the issue) but in terms of getting the industry as a whole to innovate and move forward.
Whilst i fully support individual rights the power that the huge corporations wheel today makes them impervious to change. Until such time as they get like some did recently too big to fail and then we all pay.
I was not aware of just how far back these guys started, nor that they offered the technology to the corporations. Nor the fact that the corps reneged on a deal. It kinda put a little more balanced perspective on the whole thing.
Then you get Larry with a first hand experience at the same time and it brings home to one the value of the technology.
Larry i am curious as to the detail of the brake. What happens now? What is the cost to you besides your blade. Do they have the ability to refurbish the break at a reasonable price and ship you another one???
I still think that regardless of the cost the price of saving a finger or the corresponding discomfort is worth more than the cost of the saw.
Its a real interesting debate. We will see how this progresses. One has to ask if the tort laws in the US were substantially changed then would this technology ever stand a chance given this background, of being adopted.
I also think the royalty he is asking for is a bit steep. 8% of selling price is 8% margin. If that were 8% of the gross margin then it would be more reasonable since if cost increases the margin could well be reduced.
I suspect thats where the negotiations went sour on the hand in the pie aspect.
They now have to do all the work of making selling and distributing saws and probably have a net profit of 8% after costs and taxes etc and in the process they have shared the equity of the business with the angles that backed them so their net stake is probably 20% of the business. Which implies they now would net only 20% of the 8% net profit if thats what it worked out to be. Thats a far cry from a few percent of the big boys pie. Given the market for table saws is $175 million per annum according to the article, I would have settled for a smaller royalty assuming that was the problem.