Watch Next: US Government Wants to Change Table Saws FOREVER! th-cam.com/video/kb6LRfGhr_g/w-d-xo.html Table Saws I Have Used and Recommend: Budget Option 1 - amzn.to/3SfUdXc Budget Option 2 - amzn.to/3vGDKUj Mid Tier Option - www.lowes.com/pd/DELTA-Contractor-Saws-10-in-Carbide-Tipped-Blade-15-Amp-Table-Saw/1001385562 SawStop I Have - amzn.to/3U8ZIJW Push Block I Recommend for Safety - amzn.to/3OeCpug Table Saw Push Stick - amzn.to/3OfQOXg My Woodworking Business Building Course - sawduststartups.com My New Tool Company - faithvalleytools.com The full list of tools and supplies I recommend can be found on my website: www.731woodworks.com/recommended-tools Greatest Free Gift I've Ever Received: story4.us/731Woodworks Join the TUBAFOUR NATION through Patreon to get access to exclusive member only behind the scenes videos, member only livestreams, exclusive discounts, and other cool member only perks! www.patreon.com/731woodworks If you use one of these Amazon and other affiliate links, I will receive a commission on qualifying purchases. Greatest Free Gift I've Ever Received: story4.us/731Woodworks Some other useful links: Daily Tool Deals on my website: www.731woodworks.com/tool-deals Subscribe to our email Newsletter to get new content alerts, sales, and more! mailchi.mp/7e44c16eefdc/731-woodworks-email-newsletter Easy to Follow Build Plans - www.731woodworks.com/store Outlaw's Board Butter - So Good it Should be Outlawed: www.731woodworks.com/store/boardbutter
Saw Stop is absolutely not "giving away" anything. They are taking advantage of a spectacular timing issue to better their standing in a competitive market. He states several times that the implementation of the new rules would absolutely take place after their patent expired. He makes it very clear they are only giving access to the 840 patent. He does this several times in his statement. It is very clear this is a decisive move to solidify the company's public standing in a positive way to acquire the publics attention and future revenue. (It is a brilliant marketing move.)
I've been leaving comments on youtube videos for 3 years about the patents expiring this year and next. They were supposed to expire about 5 years ago, but SawStop convinced the govenment to give them an extension. It was technically correct, but shouldn't have happened. SawStop has been extorting us with higher prices for a similar in feature and function saw to everything else on the market. Just with the novel safety feature. To price gouge for a safety feature is dirty. It was only going to get worse once the Festool parent bought them.
To take this further, he makes it clear that he is offering the services of his engineering team as consultants for implementing the technology (which admits that it isn't an easy transition, and implies a premium price tag). Trumke had his whole speech ready to go, suggesting he wasn't surprised by the "bombshell," but instead was banking on it for his strategy. It's even possible that he encouraged it for precisely this moment. The 840 patent also may only be one tiny part of the mechanism, as is typically the case with patents. The existence of alternative mechanisms doesn't speak to how financially feasible they are, either. Nuclear reactors are technically a viable alternative to gasoline engines, but nobody without a DoD contract is putting them into a vehicle for sale. The woman even reasonably predicts that the next complaint will be financial feasibility (since only one company is fully prepared to embrace this requirement, so the market will be at the feet of Sawstop for a while). There's layer upon layer of maneuvering here, and if I guess correctly, we're only seeing the thinnest surface. I know just enough about laws and patents to realize how many dark corners there are here, and acknowledge that I have absolutely no idea what the real "subtext" of this argument was, but it's clear that the surface argument wasn't the real issue at all. Welcome to politics, folks.
The 840 patent does not expire in the next 3 years, which is why they are giving it away. SS says that other patents that may prevent a competitor from making their own saws safe are expiring within the 3 year compliance window, so are moot and don't need to be made free. There are surely a bunch of other patents, but these are probably specific to their exact implementation of the technology; with the main patents out of the way (freed or expired), it should be their competitors' job to be inspired by SS, not copy them (i.e., need access to every patent). Overall, I think it's a generous move. They own the market for someone who wants a saw w/ anti-amputation tech. Their competitors keep throwing up the patents as a barrier when in fact they enjoy that they can sell saws for less than SS. The status-quo appeals to them; let SS have the premium safety-oriented market, we'll take the rest. Mandating safety will require SS to tighten margins because saws will become more comparable. On the other hand, by increasing the cost of traditional saws, it may make them close in price to SS and help consumers justify the additional spend. However, in that case consumers are choosing based on value and product quality, which is nothing but a good thing.
"You just made an incredible gift to the public." No, he didn't. He claimed he'd do so if all of his competitors suddenly had a new regulatory handcuff placed on them, but with no actual guarantee or mechanism in place to execute the public release of the patent. Just "we'll totally do it, trust us."
If that statement about Bosch Reaxx being allowed to be sold since 2018 is true (which I am suspicious of), I’m kinda pissed at Bosch, as I like their system A LOT more because it’s reset-able. I would buy one yesterday over the sawstop. But, I’m suspicious of that statement as I’m sure that, after the lawsuit that SawStop brought, that Bosch had to sign some sort of agreement not to sell the saw for a certain time period, even after the patent had expired, and it’s probably hidden in some NDA somewhere.
You're probably right and Bosch is probably just protecting themselves from more litigation! And based on the pompous nature of this guy and how he's talking to the commission I'd say if Bosch was to bring it back to market...SS would slap them with a new lawsuit so fast their head would spin!
@@731Woodworks Unfortunately, we’ll never know because that’s the nature of NDAs, but typically, when you get caught infringing on patents, there is typically more punishment than just a fine. You kinda get put in “timeout” for a period after the patent expires, because you jumped the gun
My sawstop has never misfired. If the cost of replacing the blade-stop module is a significant cost-factor because you are having multiple activations, you definitely should NOT be woodworking.
@@brucejohnson1264I am 100% with you. I can understand the appeal of the Reaxx as a lower cost alternative, but choosing it over the SawStop only because it saves a $100 consumable is just horrible economics. If a saw saved me my digits, and or hundreds of thousands in medical bills, the last thing I would be worried about is the cost of replacing a $100. Few people know that only losing a finger or two in some cases is a silver lining. Some partial lacerations result in protracted nerve shock-like sensations which make its victims beg their doctors for a full amputation.
My reading is that PTI is distorting the data. The key metric should be injuries PER HOUR OF USE. Of course there are fewer cabinet and production saws compared to job site or portable saws, but those professional saws run ALL DAY LONG. My job site saw runs, maybe, one hour a day (1-2 minutes at a time), where a cabinet/professional saw will exceed that in one month. Thus, you can't look at injuries PER SAW, you need to look at injuries PER HOUR OF USE.
I understand your point with a large shop, but you also have to take into all the cabinet saws that are in small shops and hobbyist shops that sometimes are not used for days or even weeks at a time. So your hours of use/type of saw might be less than you think for cabinet saws. You might be right with your thinking I do not know. I am just throwing this out there.
@@richardlug6139while true, can you think of anyone using a bench top/jobsite saw continuously everyday that would bring its “per hour” numbers up? Even if 75% of cabinet saws are only used occasionally, there are still 25% of them that are used every day that drag those numbers up, and there are far more benchtop/jobsite saw that sit in people garages/basements that get used once every other year. My dad has a benchtop saw that hasn’t been used in 5+ years I bet.
@@richardlug6139 Why does hours of use matter in this context? I understand where you're coming from, but the goal would be to reduce the number of injuries, not the number of injuries per hour of use. The fact of the matter is that if 72% of the injuries occur on cabinet saws and AIM tech would have prevented all of them, then having AIM tech on all cabinet saws would prevent 72% of those injuries. Even if you ignore that, the fact that many cabinet saws are used in a professional setting and see much more use only supports the argument that the presence of AIM tech is much more important on those saws. They run longer and have more opportunity to cause injury, so the importance of safety features is also more important.
@@davidchilders3574 Well yes, I provided my position why hours of use does not matter, so I don't get your response. I guess you're just agreeing with me that hours of use is irrelevant in determining where AIM tech implementation can have the most impact in reducing table saw injuries.
Saw stop: make your own technology. Also saw stop: sues every company that try’s. Bosch had a system but saw stop got it blocked in the US with a lawsuit.
"yeah, but NOW, we're saying we're going to let the patent expire" After saying it's his companies duty to protect their own patents Sawstop has the commissioner in its pocket, and it shows
This is not entirely accurate. Before sawstop ever made a single saw, they were trying to license out their technology to any and all manufacturers. They almost had a deal with Bosch, but Bosch backed out. So after that they decided to make their own saws. It's a good example of how one manufacture (Bosch and others) are reluctant to do things that are good for us all because it would make it hard to compete with other manufacturers. But making it a rule for all manufacturers creates a level playing field that benefits us all. And prices will come down eventually due to competition.
@@headybrew bosch tried it, market said no Sawstop wants money, so they'll paint themselves as the good guys to push for a useless mandate. They couldn't compete fairly, so they chose to play dirty Would be nice to see the actual injury data. Which saws were used, if training was provided or any other details Can't make rules based on emotions and blurry data
@@marcorock101"market said no"... Yes, but that's exactly what I mean by a level playing field. There are some things that don't make sense for a single manufacturer to do in a competitive market where other manufacturers aren't going to do it. But these things do make sense if all manufacturers do it. Without a rule, all manufacturers simply won't choose to do it. Sometimes rules are good. You can't play football without rules. It would just be a big mess and nobody would have any fun.
When you buy the table saw, you would also accept the risk of cutting something off. That is why Sawstop is a company: some people are not comfortable with the risk, so they are willing to pay the price. So to try to force everybody to implement this one technology is not the way to do it.
My thoughts exactly. SawStop makes it sound like only this 1 patent is stopping people from implementing the technology, but they know that’s not true. They also, most likely, have already developed the “next generation” technology that builds off of the current patent, which they inevitably will patent yet again, making the “donation” of this patent useless. A company that goes through these types of hurdles to block anyone else from even licensing the tech, to all of a sudden say “hey, if this rule goes through, we’ll give y’all the patent” isn’t doing it in good faith. They’re doing it knowing full well they have a pair of aces up their sleeve, and that the moment this patent is released, they’ll have another one ready to drop that supersedes it. I may have been born, but I wasn’t born yesterday, and I’m not going to allow the “shock” of SawStops announcement blind me from reality. It was actually nice to see the chairman of the CPSC kinda see through the crap and push back on SawStop.
@@nathan1sixteen The SawStop CEO even said as much. He said several other patents would be expiring in the next 3 years so he wouldn't need to give them up. I also noticed that Mr. Trumka said they could implement this in less than the 3 years that had been proposed since SS was giving up this single patent. The SS CEO absolutely came across as disingenuous.
@@nathan1sixteen "They also, most likely, have already developed the “next generation” technology that builds off of the current patent, which they inevitably will patent yet again, making the “donation” of this patent useless." I disagree there. So what if they develop new technology? The old technology will still meet the proposed government requirements, so is not useless. "They’re doing it knowing full well they have a pair of aces up their sleeve,..." One apparent ace is that they are willing to work with the other companies to implement the one donated patent. But presumably that implementation help will be for a fee. So Sawstop donates the patent in the hope that many of the companies will then pay Sawstop to help them implement the technology. There's more than one way to earn money!
They are only offering the technology if there is a legislative requirement for it,and it sounds like they will only legislate it if SawStop provides the technology.SawStop definitely has obsoleting technology at the ready.Otherwise,the saw wouldn’t be able to compete in the market at its current price point.SawStop performance is not a game changer.
There will always be new improvements and patents on those improvements. This is true of all technology. That doesn't preclude others from copying the original sawstop design if the patents are expired. Nor does it stop others from copying the core ideas which are now public domain and finding other ways. It is also possible to license the current state-of the art tech from Sawstop, then develop your own improvements, patent those improvements, and then cross license those improvements back to sawstop. Eventually this results in both companies having free access to the other's patents. This is how many industries function. What you don't get to do is free-ride on sawstop's innovation.
Wow. REALLY appreciate the time invested in creating this video. And your dialogue is on par. Great Job! Really cool to see you grow over the years. Really blessed I came across your channel in the early days. Keep em coming!
@@731Woodworks Bosch is non profit, so it operates differently to other companies , it has invented many thing that has been available , X-Lock in grinders Makita use that , jigsaw saw blade U (old) and T (new) connector, never heard Bosch blocking any company using those. DeWalt (Bosch , Makita a.s.o) make saw models that are banned in US , table mitre saw combos , why it's banned in US ?
@@pete_lind- partially correct. Bosch is not a non-profit, the major shareholder (which doesn't get to vote) is a not-for-profit organization. People also tend to confuse non-profit and not-for-profit organizations. While I'm far from an expert on the exact differences, the way I was explained it awhile ago was that non-profit aren't allowed to make a profit, whereas a not-for-profit can make a profit (and top executives can make big salaries), they aren't driven by profit like a profit corporation of shareholders. Regardless of the fine lines of non-profit & not-for-profit, Bosch GmbH is a private corporation for profit from my understanding.
@@pete_lind Bosch the company is for profit, while the majority owner (without voting rights), the Robert Bosch Stiftung GmbH, is a non-profit foundation. Robert Bosch Gmbh (notice without the Stiftung) pays out dividends/profits to its shareholders, but _most_ of those profits go to a charitable foundation. The Bosch family owns 8% of Robert Bosch GmbH with 7% voting rights, while the Robert Bosch Industrial Trust KG (translated from Robert Bosch Industrieltreuhand KG) owns 0.01% of Robert Bosch GmbH but has 93% of voting rights. This means that Robert Bosch Industrial Trust KG basically makes all decisions for Robert Bosch GmbH without getting "any" profits, while Robert Bosch Stiftung GmbH receives the majority of profits without making any decisions. Apparently Robert Bosh GmbH invests 9% of revenue on R&D, double the industry average of 4.7%, which lowers the profit that may be paid out to shareholders (which also probably is part of the reason for keeping the decisions and the profiteers of those decisions separate).
As someone who has had an injury from a table saw, I'd love to have this technology. That being said, I'm 100% AGAINST the government mandating it. I got my hand caught in a table saw. Know what caused it? Me, plain and simple. Wasn't the table saws fault, wasn't the manufacturer's fault, mine and mine alone. Another quick observation. The witness railing for this new rule noted that the number of injuries related to table saws has been pretty much flat since 2010. Well, the number of table saws in use has absolutely not been flat in that amount of time. That means by definition that the injury rate has actually gone down and anyone that can do basic math can figure that out.
Finally! A person who takes responsibility for his own mistakes! I salute you sir! Most everyone who screws up plays the blame game and tries to make someone else responsible for the mistake they made. Where on earth did common sense go? I wonder how many TH-cam videos will be out there showing how to disable the saw stop feature to avoid the expense of having to replace the cartride, blade and whatever else gets torn up with every activation. As I understand it, repairing a saw after activation is a very expensive thing in itself.
@@davidbrittenham4631 Thank you, I appreciate it. I've always observed that people that don't take responsibility never get any better, so I made the decision to own my own mistakes. Common sense is, unfortunately, not common anymore.
Bean counters. You just have to luv em. Wow, what a jab at Feldman by the other commissioner. I'm glad that he said thank you to the CEO. Someone needed to. Then he becomes a horses behind.
Auto manufacturers reacted exactly the same way, when Volvo gave the public the 3 point seatbelt. This saved people from flying through the window…and the manufacturers didn’t want to ‘invest’ in that technology at that time either.
Well, assuming the data is accurate, it looks like your stereotypical carpenter and contractor who doesn't care about safety using a jobsite saw with no riving knife or bladeguard is not the problem. Looks like it's mostly cabinet and big furniture shops that have the problem. Folks who are spending thousands of dollars already to buy big cabinet saws. Folks who are running a saw full-time all day long (who likely get complacent because of that) are where the problems come in. It looks like the carpenters running a jobsite saw on a construction site are actually taking things seriously. Which makes sense, they aren't using the saw all day long. They are making a cut here and there, then doing something else. Because of that, they likely are maintaining more focus on doing the cut safely, then a guy doing the same cut 1000 times a day on a big cabinet saw. Also, carpenters and contractors are likely using miter saws more often for cutting 2x4s and trim and only occasionally need to use the table saw to rip a board down. Of course that is assuming the data is accurate. Also...how many of those cabinet saw injuries are from older saws that lack a riving knife? They say the data didn't change much in the last 20 years since riving knives, but they also note that most of the injuries are from cabinet saws. So...how many of those injuries in the last 20 years are from new guys getting into the trade (and thus have a newer saw with a riving knife) vs older guys (or new guys who bought a used cabinet saw without a riving knife)? There is missing data here that is needed to get a proper picture of who exactly is getting injured and why. I'm not saying that mandating the safety tech wouldn't be a good thing in the long run (it very well might), but I'd like to see the data where a sawstop feature would have saved an injury that's happened where someone was using a riving knife and blade guard. Do we have that data? Wouldn't that be useful in determining whether the safety feature is as essential as believed that we need to force the added cost on consumers?
And it's not just the complacency factor.... Think of the number of cuts or hours of use of the jobsite saw vs furniture shop saws. The amount of running/cutting time on the cabinet saws far exceeds that of the jobsite saws. For instance, I guarantee that automotive body shops work on more white cars than brown cars. Are brown cars magically safer than white cars? No. White cars make up 23% of those on the road whereas brown cars only represent 1.7% of cars out there.
“Why do you want these horrific injuries to continue to happen to people?” Is such a disingenuous and dishonest question to ask. Last I checked, not one single tool manufacturer tells you to touch the spinning saw blade. In fact, they tell you not to touch the spinning saw blade and techniques to help prevent it from happening. That Mr Trumpka is such a slimey slimey dude
I always find it telling when a government representative is always stating that the "rich investors" are the only beneficiary of profits from a company. They always forget about the 401k's, MF's, EFT's, etc. that many people have invested in that also benefit.
This is a money grab. Self-inflicting table saw injuries is an ADULT CHOICE to do what you should not want to do, and I'm fine with dummies losing digits but not fine with increased saw costs to cater to said dummies. I've never cut myself on a table saw because I use them properly. Pusher sticks are not rocket surgery.
Find this stuff very interesting. I know takes a ton of time and effort to research it and then put together the videos so I appreciate the condensed version your giving us on this as it progresses.
Thank you @SawStop for lobbying more nanny-state legislation that'll be used to generate more "rules" brought to us by the fourth branch or government. Just another reason to never buy your products. And thank you @731Woodworks for the breakdown and keeping us informed.
Don't get me started. All it does it make me wonder who in the government is making money on this proposed legislation. It's not nobody that's for sure !!
Agreed...this is first rate bullshit. I'll never ever own a Sawstop product...ever. Trying to force kindergarten safety rules on the industry to solidify their profits and future as a company using people who have had accidents to tug on heart strings of the weak minded, "please save us mister government" half. If you like the tech, buy it, but don't force YOUR solution to YOUR fear on me. 😡
@@Trickmanii They said they'll let one patent expire Which is highly unlikely, since the CEO began his statement by saying it's their job to protect their patents. It's a Trojan horse "All about safety" but would ensure nobody could come up with similar technology in 20 years.... It's about money
@@marcorock101of course it's about money if I invented the technology & took all the risk I would protect my investment as well & so would you. The other players don't give a shit about you either because the inventor offered to sell them the tech first they declined. That's when he went on his own building the saw stop. These other companies are billion dollar manufactures they can pay to retool & if it cost $200-$300 more per saw its money well spent. I recently became an amputee id give everything I have to have my leg back.
@@larryriffett918they probably declined because they dug into it an seen all the ins an outs. I used to like saw stop but after helping a friend in his shop that has one I realized they've got big problems. It's very annoying when ya go to run a board through an the saw kicks off because of a little moisture in the board
Dear Volvo. I thank you for not being saw stop. Your technology saved more than a finger, it saved my life. Dear saw stop. Lay down your sword and be like Volvo. Your time is nearing an end, just let it go. Well buy cheaper tech once you release your strangle hold and that's okay. In fact in mandalore, they say "this is the way".
I HATE appeals to emotion and even worse when he simply cuts her off instead of letting her finish talking. That to me shows he simply has an agenda and doesn't care about answer that don't immediately satisfy him. I also firmly believe that the commission is actively lying to people about the total injuries like you called out in the start of the video. After all, the CPSC only has the ability to make rules that apply to consumer products (which applies to what the average consumer could afford even though technically a flush enough consumer could buy a business saw) with OSHA having the rulemaking power over businesses and if they're lumping business and consumer injuries into one bucket, this changes the game and likely will provide a significant area of attack for lawsuits that likely would can the rule permanently. Not only that, while tragic, I wouldn't be surprised if what the AIM techs prevent isn't actually the brunt of tablesaw injuries as kickback is far more likely and easier to induce and would definitely be lumped into table saw injuries.
I wonder if the number of children injured by cribs is any less since thw drop-side ban. I also wonder how many back injuries have occurred due to not having a drop-side crib.
Of course there is obfuscation at work. They never discriminate between serious and non-serious injuries in the statistics. They just bring up the serious ones as anecdotal reports (and of course elaborate ad nauseum) when they repeat the stories, and completely omit the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of reported injuries are minor and do not require any significant medical treatment.
@@dr.emilschaffhausen4683 Maybe, but you highlight a huge pet peeve. Cribs and children and things that can potentially hurt other non-consenting people, is one thing. But, a saw technology that is meant to protect someone from THEMSELVES, is an entirely other thing. Enough of this nanny state bullshit.
Hi Matt... Thank for the update on the Saw Stop and the Patent wars and government oversight... a lot of good information. you put a lot of time and effort into this issue! Year before last I bought a Track Saw, I got because of a very generous Rockler Christmas gift card I received. The Track Saw has me working less with my Contractor style Table Saw... I know a lot of people would love to own a SawStop and I remember when you got yours as a gift from a Church member, that was a grand gesture on that persons part. When I go into my shop... it's safety safety safety... that's one of the reasons I watch You Tube as much as I do; I want to learn something new, but also learn a safety tip or two at the same time. This was a good informative You Tube, there are sure a lot of issues here... Thanks for the time you put into this!!!
Without more detailed injury stats they aren't making a fair judgement. 1. Only saws impacted by their purview injuries can be considered 2. Types of injuries - Of the amount of injuries, how many would specifically be prevented by AIM technology, as opposed to kickback. If they are this adamant on safety, they would first ensure what area of tablesaws should they focus on and improve safety of.
As you know I work for the government and I say it to my coworkers and leads everyday “stop creating mountains out of mole hills” the government is very good at that because someone is always trying to get noticed and make a name for themselves in the government.
We're going to give away our patent for the public good because it was about to expire. However, you will find that we have patented all kinds of other little things that will get in your way of implementing this technology.
I think Sawstop is playing games. I doubt I'd ever be a customer of theirs if I had a choice. Also just because the Saw Stop CEO is being snarky and perhaps successfully deflecting some criticisms doesn't make him a good guy in this AT ALL. Sleazy IMO.
What is Sleazy about this? The patent He is offering to make public domain could be locked down for several more decades The Rep who is trying to deflect is basicly saying That Volvo making seatbelt wasn't good enough because Volvo still had a patent on their belt buckle design
they have been sleazy since day one when they tried to get the patent mandated on all saw manufacturers by the government. These guys are the bottom of the barrel. If they were truly concerned about safety, they would make it free for all like Volvo did with seatbelts. I will never buy a Sawstop.
These are big companies my man, there is nothing human about them. They have to do all they can to maximize profits and being "good" or "bad" has nothing to do with business in the US. What will make our investors the most money is the only thing that matters, full stop. Stealing tech and protecting your patents is big business. There is a human talking but he is legally obligated to do what he is doing. That's why so many mentally unfit people run and defend these companies. They can do inhumane things and be fine with it because they are rewarded grossly for it. Instead of you know paying their workers more or making products cheaper and better. We need to stop being surprised by companies doing what's best for profits when it's what they have to do. That conversation is done. And that's all this is.
Your closing statement says you love this technology but the increased barrier to entry is too high for you to agree with it. I would counter by saying in the short-term, people can still buy used saws for cheap. In the long-term (say 10 years from now) they still can buy used - but also, this rule will push makers (which have massive R&D budgets) into innovating these safety features in cheaper and simpler ways.
SawStop is disingenuous here. Sure, they are making the gesture of giving away the one patent, but only if the rule is implemented. "Our patents are expiring, so will you please make a rule to protect and enhance our market share after we can no longer stop market entry?"
Whether SawStop is disingenuous is irrelevant to me as a consumer. These other companies had the opportunity to implement safety features into their products, but they chose not to. I'm glad the CPSC is forcing these billion dollar companies to implement stronger safety standards for people like me.
@@eliporter3980I believe you are incorrect, sawstop actively stopped the manufacturers from introducing any blade retraction safety. Look up the Bosch table saw lawsuit.
They are offering to make the primary patent, the core functionally of the system - which is not due to expire public domain, if the government will mandate that it, or something similiar is mandated What you are doing is saying that Volvo giving up the patent on seatbelts is not enough if they still held a patent on their buckle design
I’d buy a Bosch Reaxx yesterday if it were available here in the US. the fact it doesn’t damage the blade is a huge plus. I have an inkling SawStop is going to patent exactly such a mechanism-an upgrade-which is why they are fine with releasing the current patent to the public. They’ll still be one step ahead.
Trumka posted a highly edited video to his Facebook of him berating the PTI representative. It's all stagecraft, which is why he didn't allow her to make a response. Makes me wonder if he's being paid. He failed to mention that the first two people he asked about were not using proper safety precautions. Their injuries were tragic, but preventable. I'd recommend that anyone who is annoyed with this rule to look it up and comment.
Of COURSE he's being paid off. But even if he weren't, it is IN HIS NATURE to be an extortionist and blackmailer. Check the political allegiances. Check his bloodline. He is a pure administrative state brown shirt.
Any feelings you have about it, 31:28 says it all. Billions dollars in dividends and buybacks for shareholders instead of safety investments or improvements in 20 years. Really only regulation will force them to innovate, so I have changed my opinion on this and believe government is doing what it should for public safety and why we have government.
I’ve been a carpenter for 28 years and always been careful where I place my hands or any body part, in running a carpentry business one must have safety awareness and discipline to run a shop at every moment, that’s why rules are created . If you sidestep your discipline, then your an idiot for injuring yourself.They’re complaining about tables saws to be dangerous, well what about the upright saws that cut wood, metal and frozen meat. Where is the safety to that? The blade is wide open at a high speed and it’s a flying guillotine when it snaps. The commission are bunch of sourpusses and with no experience in using a machine they need to be taken to a shop and see for themselves
No one buys and uses a table saw with the thought of cutting off a finger or worse. But in reality, you can be extremely careful and all it would take is something like a bee sting at the wrong time for an accident to happen. What I would like to know is how much it will cost a manufacture to implement AIM on a table saw and will that cost be multiplied at each step until it finally reaches the consumer. In other words, if it cost the manufacture $150, is the consumer going to see a $150 price increase or a $450 price increase. My guess is that the consumer will pay the $450.
The fact of the matter is that SS, with or without their patents in the way, are pushing this requirement to end users who do not want it but will have to pay for it. Even if they open their patents, this will increase their profits and market share because they are and have been ready for a long time to sell these saws, that is what they do. Bosh might be able to also ramp up and do this, but other brands will be years behind, or just incapable of offering the systems. How does this benefit the end user? It doesn't. If you are worried about not being able to keep your fingers away from the blade, you can go and buy a SS right now, but for the rest of us, who do not want this, it will force us to pay for it, even if we don't want to use it, and ultimately benefitting SS.
All the top sellers have money for their own research & devoplment. Besides he's giving up what they've been whinning about for years for free. Now what are these other multi million dollar companies gonna whine about.
Giving up just one patent is ridiculous. Think about a automobile, would one free patent help you that much? A table saw is a mechanical and electrical device. Having a free patent on the mechanical side does nothing to help the electrical side. Is that one patent covering the flesh sensor, the brake, the drop mechanism? Just one doesn't help much. Also Americans are cheap. If the prices go up even 10% people will buy used ones or make them out of a portable circular saw.
@@a9ball1 It is not the responsibility of SS to give up their company to other companies who refuse to do anything other than pander to their investors. SS gave them what they needed to develope effective and safe systems. Most of these other companies have already developed their own systems but refuse to implement it because they would either have to reduce their profits, increase prices or both. SS is not the gatekeeper here. It is the consumers who do not want to pay more and it is the companies who refuse to sell at a loss.
What a load of crap from the Sawstop CEO. Just release the patents if they really wanted to 'protect woodworkers'. They don't. They want to make money. PERIOD.
Trumka is a typical bureaucrat pinhead. Now that things have changed, give me an immediate yes or no, because I have tearjerking photos and a mustache.
It was very, very aggravating listening to Trumka's inquisition. While he raised a few good questions (not all though), he was grandstanding the entire time. He was hostile from the get go, and it was clear that he had no interest anything the other two people had to say, or actually having a dialog. I'm a woodworker, and I own a contractor saw and I plan to buy a new floor model saw a few years from now, so this definitely effects me. This is a pretty important topic, and I wish those involved would grow up and serve the public, and not their own interests.
804 is just one of many patents. Its tantamount to giving away the airbag patent or ABS patents without all of the other key developments for its implementation and deployment. Sawstop started to wanting to license their tech when they started out. The consumer has a choice NOW. Buy with Sawstop or buy with another vendor. If the rule is adopted then a couple of outcomes are evident. Sawstop will license their other technologies. Other saws pricing will become more inline with Sawstop. Older saw resale value will go up some. And some folks will adopt more dangerous more affordable methods. Or the CPSC could implement the rule say starting in 2030 giving the manufacturers a 6 year window to more thoroughly develop their own tech. I have seen first hand Sawstop save fingers at a school. I would NEVER use anything but a Sawstop in an educational environment nor would any child including grand children use anything but a Sawstop. Having said that my personal shop has 3 conventional table saws. With riving knife. With blade guard. And no children are allowed to use my shop. Start with the bug cabinet saws. Then implement to smaller saws over the course of a few years.
I wonder if Trumka is on the take/getting payola from SawStop. He asks Orenga a question, but before she's able to answer he interrupts her and doesn't allow her to answer the question(s). From the start, he seems combative and hostile, and I wonder if he's on SawStop's payroll. (not SS directly, of course, but through a third party "special interest" group)
The patent attorney Matt interviewed in a previous video had an interesting idea on who could be pushing this. He suggested it could be insurance companies. That makes a lot of sense. They have much deeper pockets than tool manufacturers..
While I thought the same thing about Trumpka, when you think about it, you could make a similar argument about Feldman. While I am against this rule and in that sense somewhat aligned with Feldman's position, if I'm honest I'd have to admit that some of his questioning and responses to Matt Howard seemed inconsistent with what Howard had just said and to some extent possibly unreasonable. It's hard to know for sure - at least for someone like me with only some surface level understanding of the patents involved and what's required to implement them in a practical saw.
I have an older Craftsman table saw (about 20 years old) I have no plans of upgrading but a retrofit kit that would add a riving knife would be great. I do use an overhead dust collection/guard, I think that would go a long ways towards saw safety.
I wonder how did they get that data about injuries?! How many cabinet table saws are on the market as we speak, how many users across the last 10 years of usage and how many injuries during those 10 years?! That's how they should get their numbers, that's how you make stats. I didn't even mention if the cabinet table saw users are using the riving knife or the blade guard in the equation. They just want to please whoever pays more to the commission's budget. Always follow the money. This is NOT for "the consumer' safety", not for our safety as professionals. Do your own research in your area.
@@gnic76 The talk of "injuries" did seem a bit vague and I wondered whether this was only injuries involving blade contact or whether it included other types of injuries such as from projectiles.
I just had a tablesaw accident for the first time. It was a minor accident, but it really messed me up mentally. I have been using a tablesaw since I was a child. But now I'm too scared to use one without higher safety features. I'm looking at sawstop now. But like everyone else, the cost is a major problem.
If cabinet saws are where most injuries are happening but are not included to require aim tech, that leaves benchtop saws. If i understand this correctly, im not that smart by the way, it sounds to me like the numbers are being fudged to make most saws you see on jobsites require aim tech, which i can almost garauntee there are more benchtops sold per year than cabinet saws. Something wierd is going on here. Wish i was smarter lol. If im wrong feel free to correct me
That the price would go up is not really an argument imo. Cars are effing expensive, mainly because of all the mandatory safety equipment that it has to have. (Seatbelts, airbags, side impact protection, collapsable steeringcolumns and so on and so on.) There is no option for someone to say 'ooh ill take the model without ABS, airbags, and seatbelt' So initially the price would go up, and when production ramps up, and development moves on prices will come down, smaller better tech might be developed that allows the same for routers and other scary things 😅 In any case it is interesting to see all this play out... Like every party is right from its own POV. The thing im most sour about is that Sawstop refuses to set up shop in Europe...
I'm going to call it now. There will be clauses in insurance policies that will allow the insurance companies to deny policies for anyone who hasn't abided by the laws and purchased one of these pricey saws. The hand greases the hand. The Government does nothing that is in our concern, it's all about profits. Somebodies getting a nice kickback from the insurance companies, I guarantee this.
@@Gawron28just like SawStop. They know the patent issue isn't solved and they will just litigate anyone that tries to comply with this new rule creating the monopoly they've been after. If they cared about safety they would have licensed the technology years ago.
@@Gawron28 I don't exactly agree with him but I think you would find there is a lot of truth to what he said if you did a deep dive into the last 100 years and insurance companies/ government action
All battery operated tools have been made safer, grinder blades stop in under 1 sec, drill stop if it has suddenly position changes over 15°, tool stops if it is dropped , circular and plunge saws stop on kickback (corded ones jump at user) Most important thing , realize that it is a machine made to cut , it does not care if it is your hand .
Matt, first, *fantastic* job on this video! Incredibly well organized, well-researched video. I can only imagine how much time you put into this video. Second, great job on bringing out all the major issues around this complex issue. As someone who has experienced a table saw injury (in my own woodshop, on a contractor saw, 21 years ago), I have a great interest in the subject and have followed it for a long time. I am much more comfortable working in my woodshop today, with my SawStop PCS. It wasn't the saw's fault, it was mine, but the change is real. Imagine how many lives SawStop could change my offering this patent to the industry--all it takes now is for those companies to *think of their customers first* and adopt it. It's that simple. Not everyone will commit to buying at a higher price, of course, but the market will drive prices down over time and everyone will benefit from safer saws.
I just feel that the only reason that sawstop is willing to give up this patent at this time is because it is old technology and will soon be surpassed. Plus to drop this information like sawstop did is totally unprofessional. It was a tactic to catch anyone and everyone off guard. Totally unacceptable! Of course this lady is not gonna makes snap decision! No one would. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth with sawstop. That smug attitude is off putting to me.
I kind of took it as the Sawstop CEO needed this forum to drop the information. The key here was that he will only make the patent public IF the CPSC goes forth with placing the rule. Clearly he knows that the CPSC wants him to license it now so they can gather cost data and such from other manufacturers such as Grizzly once they put the tech into a saw. They seem stuck on that where as the CEO has said I'll release the patent, then the other companies can do their work from there. So I'm not 100% sure he intended to take everyone off guard vs was this just the right place and right time to make this presentation to the right forum of people? He is now on record in an official hearing stating his intent to release the patent IF they make the rule. Was also interesting when he basically said you want numbers, go talk to Bosch and ask them why they are not selling their saw since they have been able to since 2018 but are not!
It was sawstops way of making themselves look good to the regulatory board. Basically, they’re trying to brown nose the CSPC into approving the rule and forcing the rest of the industry into SawStops lap. You have to remember, the mechanism is only part of the process. SawStop has 20 year of knowledge and data on how to do this. They will make a killing in the consulting side of things if this ruling goes through, so they’re all for it, so of course they pull a publicity stunt like this. If they really cared, they would donate that patent to the public right now (I believe there’s only a year or so left on it anyways). And, if that patent really was the key difference, than they wouldn’t donate it at all.
I believe Saw Stop is not altruistic here in the slightest. All of the moves are attempts at manipulating the laws and market into their favor and damn the public interest. As I said elsewhere I would always be a customer of their competitors in the future if I have a choice.
my guess is that trumpka knew what sawstop had planned…otherwise he couldn’t have had a prepared question to the manufacturing association lawyer. the pictures also make the “if we could save everyone case” which will never happen. just because we are 21st century humans and just because there is technology, it doesn’t not implicitly follow the end of all bad things. A table saw with AIM technology will not be the only devices used to cut wood, nor will table saws be the only machine used to process the timber. is no lie that a mercedes has safety features chevrolet doesn’t have. so why don’t we require everyone to buy a mercedes or pay to have everyone license what ever the 2024 equivalent of the the AIM technology in cars is? since drunk drivers kill, why don’t we require all manufacturers to install an ignition interlock? mr trumpka lives in a world of his own creation and imposes his value set on the rest of us.
I totally agree. They did it for optics 100% and knowing they would have a temporary monopoly and cost their competition butt loads of money. Where was this caring approach thru the years when they were suing anyone who tried to copy it ??!!
Correct... but that doesn't in any way dispute what was said here. In fact, that lawsuit was specifically addressed in the hearing. I can mention a single part of a much larger story too. What's your point?
@@CGoody564 The fact that the comment I was responding to was a half truth, it was trying to imply Saw stop is trying to stop people having safer saws - but the truth is that there is nothing stopping them right now
I would love the see Trumka's money trail. He seems to have a hard on for this. Lowes and Home Depot prices are the true gate keepers. They sell the most tables saws and MFGs know Home Depot and Lowes customers are price sensitive. Tables Saws are not out here on their own cutting fingers and limbs. People are out her cutting other fingers and limbs. People are cutting themselves on table saws they purchased.
He's in on it, yup, campign funding up the wahoo. 840 is part of it, disconnecting the blade from drive is the easy part, beating the electrical sensing is the hard part.
After his statement about other larger companies having more patents than they have, I read the saw stop CEO's comment to mean they would discuss a way to cross license their patent if, and when the other companies cross license their patents to saw stop.
How nice. Sawstop is willing to allow others to use their patented technology BUT only when it will force their competitors to increase the cost of their saws...
And become dependent upon this in their manufacturing process so they can drop the hammer on them downstream. This clown isn't offering free licensing in perpetuity.
@@chuckschillingvideos Making the patent public domain (as they were saying) _is_ for perpetuity. Look up public domain and how that means _anyone_ can use what's in the public domain without payment or permisison from anyone else.
I find Mr. Trumka's questions about the poor people who suffered severe injuries problematic. Any of those people could have purchased a saw with safety features. It was a choice probably based on price that they (for the most part) could have made. That being said, I applaud TTS and hope all saws will adopt better Safety systems.
Thank you! Thumbs up to the horizon! It will probably take 3 years to get all the rules written and approved, given the process. I am informed on this topic now. I have 2 table saws, cabinet and work site and will probably not replace either with an AIM saw. If my grandchildren want to use a table saw, a SawStop will arrive in my shop tomorrow.
There is another strategic advantage to Saw Stop offering this patent to the public - The substantial added expense to a competitor's least expensive saws makes Saw Stop more competitive in the market at the lower end. Their technology and its implementation is mature.
Trumka is dense or disingenuous. TTS are not thinking of consumers, but only their bottom line. They have no interest in giving anything away except a shaky patent that's going to expire soon anyway. What they know is that they have countless of additional patents that extend the original designs, as well as knowing that a lot of "manufacturers" don't do their own design work, leaving them having to work with TTS and license. Table saw injuries for consumer models are demonstrably low compared to many other tools - the saw stats alone from this video allude to that. This is a really bad precedent being considered here. The first guy questioning TTS CEO was on point. Get with FRAND licensing terms NOW. A "promise" in this hearing means nothing. Not binding. The patent has to be made available to the public before any decisions are made, not held as extortion as the CEO is proposing.
I hate when bureaucrats ("politicians") do this crap in hearings. They go the emotional route, cutting off responses, and iterating narratives that misrepresent the other side. Unless the other side is repeating prepared statements that evade the point of the questions. When they are done with the table saw they'll go after others. The jointer, the miter saw,. the circular saw, shoot, I've injured myself drilling through joists with 1 inch spiral bit that caught. SMH
Congress is barely able to pass a budget. They have delegated rule-msking authority to agencies. Congress also has the ability to override any regulation they object to. They could also change the scope of what the regulation making agency can do. Overall, the CPSC has done a great job of reducing injuries and deaths. If we had to wait for Congress to pass laws to do things like making lawmowers less likely to cut off parts of feet, it wouldn't happen. Lawnmowers stop when you let go of the handle because of CPSC rules. Obviously, tool makers have a vested interest in maximizing their profit, and they are fighting this rule because they know they won't sell as many table saws if the price goes up. Lawsuits over injuries suffered that could have been prevented if a saw had SawStop technologies are apparently not enough to convince them to incorporate the technology. What the CPSC is not looking at is the number of people who won't be able to buy a table saw because of the higher price. Unfortunately, these are likely to be the same people who can't afford health insurance to address their injuries if they had a table saw accident. I don't have any good approaches to address this.
@@johnhaller5851 You know who else has a vested interest in keeping table saw prices down? Consumers. If people want to spend the extra money on a saw with AIM tech, they can already do that today. Nobody is stopping them.
@@brettski74 I also like to keep the cost of health insurance low. If there was a $100 per year surcharge for using a table saw without AIM technology, would that influence consumer decisions? I'm not sure if that's the right number, or if the majority of injuries caused by "professional" saws not covered by the CPSC regulations was part of the calculations for cost effectiveness of this regulation, but not buying saws with AIM technology creates externalities of paying for the injuries which could be prevented. Most people without AIM technology will never have an accident with a table saw, but some will, and those accidents will be quite expensive to society between medical care and loss of work opportunities, and possible disability or welfare payments. I don't pretend to have the right answer, but people are generally poor at analyzing risk-reward ratios. We, as a society also don't typically require people to bear the cost of that risk. This results in government actions to reduce risk, as government ends up dealing with some of the results of bad results from making risky decisions. There are other possibilities, like licensing used for professionals, but that's also costly.
The technology is available to the consumer. The consumer choose not to purchase it and knew the risks. It shouldn't be up to other manufacturers to be responsible for people's injuries
The one commissioner dude is a joke. It's their patent. They have every right to do with they are doing. They have NO obligation to discuss licensing. All this whole thing about is a money grab.
At the core of this debate is the question of whether the Governments responsibility is to save us from risk (our choice ourselves)....the majority of buyers of table saws have opted not to pay for Sawstop like technologies choosing to accept risk because of cheaper saws without the safety feature..I wonder what other safety features standards will be forced on us...
I agree that Shopsmith may have a rough time making the blade drop below the table, but may have a leg up because or the DVR motor being able to stop quickly. This is just my opinion, not trying disput your statement.
This is a great video, thank you for putting in the work to not only pass the information but also the explanations you gave broke it down to make it more understandable. I applaud Saw Stop for offering to give their tech for free. I would have liked to hear what she had to say instead of getting cut off repeatedly. I think that was uncalled for. I will repeat my views that I commented on the last video on this subject. I see both sides of this issue. It’s a tough one. As a consumer that’s trying to start up a small business it would cause more expense for someone who doesn’t have a table saw yet or who wants to upgrade. On most things, I always prefer less government over government overreach. On the other hand, I have a safety background including a degree in safety. We have taken great strides since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when there were no regulations concerning safety. This allowed companies to hire children working in dangerous industries. This continued until the Shirt Waist fire in 1911. We slowly gained regulations until the creation of OSHA in 1969. OSHA has made a lot of progress on the safety of workplaces. Nobody likes them coming around, but they play a positive role for the most part. I know this is about product safety, but they overlap here.
I told you the last video that you made that this was going to happen. And you said you like and agree with the government mandating this rule. This is a disaster , even if Saw Stop gives everyone the free technology it will increase prices and increase problems. ''Nannys'' don't understand what is next i. They are already talking about if your are not a professional you will not be able to use a table saw . ,and they are looking into using insurance companies to increase insurance so high for woodworkers that it will eliminate home shops. Poeple who thought this was good has open the Flood Gates . This is so un AMERICAN, I hope all the big companies get together and take the government to court. Big Brother is coming for many more of your favorite hobbies and sports.
The market does not want them or does not want to pay that much or can't afford those saws . Don't be a bootlicker and stand on the side of capitalism and freedom.
I’ll never be in the market for a new table saw as my 113 is perfectly suitable for another 50 years. If I were in the market, it damn sure wouldn’t be a SawStop. Instead, I’d buy a vintage machine.
Love your videos. I don’t comment much on anything but. 731 thank you for your content ALL your content. One day I looked up purple hear projects. I got 731 and the Twin Towers coin mallet. Just WoW.
That Trumka guy is a dishonest a -hole. Using pictures of people to try and guilt her into getting g a specific reply. The overwhelming majority of table saw injuries are user error when safety techniques are not being used. Unless the saw itself does not function correctly not one single manufacturer is responsible for any injuries.
Thanks for the comprehensive video on the politics behind this. I’m an English guy living in the Canary Islands. So I’m not sure if this is going to be a world wide change with the rules? Or just in America. I’m a builder for 40 years & I’ve been woodworking with a good quality 3 horse power table saw for over 25 years. On day one I cut a nice groove in my thumb with a brand new blade and table saw that I paid 3k for back then ( English £s) never took it for granted since! Had a few kick backs even when fully concentrating ! One went through a plywood door! Luckily that one didn’t hit me! Dangerous tools sometimes equal danger.! There is no way around it. Saw Stop tech looks great but I’m not sure it’s going to save everyone! Other tech out there as well, looks fantastic with cameras that monitor where your hand are! But if you make a mistake it’s always going to cost you something! Lose clothes, long hair, a moment of not paying attention, and unfortunately, when you get older and have done this thing several thousand times. That’s when it will get you! Just my opinion. But thanks for the great Video!
Saw Stop has caught SOOOOOO MUCH GREEF for suing the crap outta any other table manufacturer that thought of implementing their own AIM technologies or in the development of those technologies. This Saw Stop Lawyer is really choosing his truth very carefully.
The Bosch system was different and arguably better, and still they got sued and lost on an injunction. Here we are, the consumers, with zero choice and only one participant. This is monopoly. But sure... Apple is the bad guy in cell phones, AT&T is (well, was) the bad guy in land copper and POTS. The government's Eye of Sauron for monopolies is very... ahem... selective (read as: $$$).
But they weren't "implementing their OWN AIM technologies", they were stealing SawStops copyrighted technology too closely despite there being other methods to implement AIM
For all these that had injuries, did they have the safety components installed when working? What is to say you cannot bypass the technology after the first time it is used? Same as not using the safety already available.
Early in my career, in a different industry, I occasionally interacted with Federal regulators. They have no incentive to refrain from increasing regulation or even to consider fairly arguments against increased regulation. Trumka is a perfect example of the arrogant, power-mad bureaucrat accountable to no one but still not satisfied with his authority so resorting to half-truths, shaming, and innuendo. Look no further for the argument on why the power of the Federal government must be curtailed.
Not only do they have no incentive to refrain from enacting excessive regulations - they have every incentive to, in fact, implement them. The more they regulate, the more power they wield and can threaten to wield. They are blackmailers and extortionists.
I read somewhere once, that the inventory of sawstop offered to license tool manufacturers. They refused so he started sawstop. With the recent information online about this current event, I cannot find this information again. I recently purchased the CPS because I like my fingers. They are worth more than the extra $900 Canadian I just spent.
It will also send a ton of companies into the arms of SawStop, because I can guarantee that there’s more to the tech than just that one patent. As the dude says around the 11:30 mark, there’s 20ish years of know-how that SawStop has built up that other companies don’t. They know that, if the ruling goes through, they’re poised to make A TON of money in licensing fees and all, just due to the sheer amount of information and data they have on the topic.
It will certainly raise prices - but not nearly as much as it would have if Sawstop was licensing the technology. Now it's just the retooling and additional hardware costs - the IP will be free.
@@nathan1sixteenthat's the gotcha he was ignoring, that 840 patent is only part of system which means to implement it you either hope they'll license the others needed or risk infringing on them and being sued. SS is essentially trying to put others out of the market using government regulations and that's likely why they are again filing for patent extensions. They want total market share of table saws specially smaller ones since theirs isn't selling near like they hoped.
@@nathan1sixteen What know how? The current sensor is literally used in touch lamps for 50 years. Its not hard to figure out how to drop the blade below the table, whether you use gas like Bosch, springs like Sawstop or a motor like Felder.
@@totallynottrademarked5279 I can GUARANTEE you that implementation is a bit more complicated than you make it when it comes to a commercially available product. Making a 1-off work and making a commercially available product are 2 VERY different things, and having someone with experience producing them is invaluable in the process.
I lost the top of my thumb to a table saw, but I still believe that the consumers should have the final destination as to whether the table saw they buy does or does not have the technology. I do not need someone deciding for me what risks I take in life. Thanks for keeping us informed
I really appreciate your series on this. I haven't seen it anywhere else in my feed, and I think it is fantastic that you're taking the time to go through and interpret what the conversation going on is. (Of course, I'm in Canada, so I'm not sure how this would affect us... perhaps our sales of non-AIM saws would skyrocket to cross border shoppers). Nevertheless, great work... thanks!
@@donlee7545 it runs like sh*t. Taxes on everything left and right, we got garbage roads, schools and hospitals - plenty of bureaucrats taking their cuts though, without achieving anything useful in return.
This is insane, if industrial cabinet saws are not in the CPSC purview, then 4,000 people out of 50,000 are getting hurt, what happened to personal responsibility? 4000 people is .00000121% (+/- one 0) of the whole USA. This is insanity.
I get your point, but if you're going to do the percentage shouldn't it be the former - 4,000 / 50,000 is 8%. Which, that can't even be right, can it? Seems high. What kind of injury breakdown, I wonder.
@@marvinmartian8746 In the video he explains that 92% of the 50,000 were industrial accidents. The CSPC only has purview over NON-industrial products which leaves the 8%.
You can't really compare it to the population of the US. It would make sense to compare it to the population that uses that type of saw. Estimates show ~7.1 million benchtop saws. So 4000/7.1m = 0.056% of table saw users are injured yearly. Still miniscule.
@@SpartanORGN I would not call that miniscule. Using your own numbers, over a 20-year woodworking career, your odds of a tablesaw accident are about 1/100 (0.056x20). Many of these injuries are career-ending.
@@brucejohnson1264 miniscule in statistical significance. The key factor in people being unable to have access to AIM technology is cost. Anyone can buy a Sawstop saw if they can afford it. But if this rule gets put in place, it doesn't make AIM technology more affordable to open that barrier, it instead raises the cost of entry to every saw to similar prices of current saws with it available. So what you will see is people that want or need to have a table saw will seek more dangerous methods because they can't afford one with AIM. There are many options that could reduce injuries other than AIM technology. Tools like Jessem's stock guides are an example, would keep people's hands away from the blade but still hold the workpiece against the fence.
Screw the government and saw stop. I've sawed lots of wood over the last 35 years with table saws with the riving knife and guard removed and I have all my fingers. I've got my forever table saw and I'm not paying any frigging tax to own it.
It is an anti American idea to suggest that companies have an obligation to devote their resources to anything they do not wish to. In a free market the consumer is able to make their own choices
I too think it is anti-American to suggest any company should devote resources to not dump their waste into rivers and drinking water sources. It's obvious people will make the right choice of paying multiple time the price of a good because they know the company is not polluting. See how fast fashion is pretty much only made in the US by clean factories and very much not in Asian and South-Asian countries where they have no waste management. Isn't the free and unbiased market a great thing ?
🇸🇪In Sweden (falsely characterised as "socialist") ... in 1960s Volvo gave the World the car seat belt without protecting its Research and Development to save lives... "you are welcome" 🇸🇪 Fun facts: During Covid Absolute vodka started producing medical grade alcohol (for free) and SAS (airline) trained all grounded staff as 'medical orderlies' (helpers)... all without government involvement. ... it is called "Corporate Social Responsibility" which is highly "un-American" 😏
The entire purpose of the government is to make corporations pay the incidental costs their business incurs. So we fine major polluters because treating cancer is very expensive. Free market =/= uncontrolled market.
Why doesn't the cpsc mandate training for a tablesaw?.. from my understanding the injuries are operator error.. not machine malfunction..and if most of the injuries are from industry.. where is the safety protocols??..why do we need the government to protect us?? From ourselves..!!
Full disclosure: I have owned stock in dozens of companies across multiple industries. I can tell you, without reservation, that the companies and their Power Tool lobbying association care about the price of their stock -- and not about your hands next to that spinning blade. The CPSC may well have flawed logic or data, but at least their focus is the safety of your hands next to a spinning blade.
@bw162 are you any safer now then you were in the 90s? Arguably no your not, I can't even take a Swiss army knife on a plane. At that point my safety is solely in the hands of the airline and I don't even have a butter knife. My safety is my responsibility and not for someone else to determine
This tracks with why every table saw manufacturer is having sales on their current existing inventory. Deals on deals available with promos too. In reality, they are either trying to offload what will be outdated inventory after the mandate to add a safety feature similar to sawstops patented safety feature.... or they realize the entire industry is about to overhaul and want to reduce their exposed liabilities before the coming changes where they will need to decide how to move forward.
Can we all just acknowledge that SawStop has given NOTHING to the public at this point. NOTHING. PERIOD. They have “made a promise”, and we all know how good companies are at upholding promises… The mere fact they are unwilling to budge on ANYTHING until after the fact is the main concern, because it shows that they know something that the rest of us don’t, and if other companies were allowed to license and produce/sell their own products, that they will learn some of those things. SawStop, in my opinion, has a golden opportunity right now to license out their IP to other companies and allow them to gather real-world data on how much a new rule like this would effect manufacturing and pricing. The fact that they’re refusing to do anything until AFTER the government forces other companies to include this tech is just more proof that they aren’t acting in good faith, and Feldman is calling them out for it (whereas the other board members have fallen for the “surprise” narrative that SawStop was looking for).
Great content thanks for taking the time and care to produce it. UK: our one and only option to get saw stop tech is in a festool saw which I can see from a known discount supplier today at about £1500 (about $1900 US). Also looking online at Sawstop their saws appear to start at $900 US (about £700) and that's mrp rather than any discounted price. For comparison mrp for the Festool is about £2000 (about $2500 US). £700 isn't a crazy price for a portable table saw in the UK, although it's probably at the highrer end. A small DeWalt which is a popular choice here might cost around £500. So in the UK it costs about 2.7x more to access the same safety feature. I understand the commercial considerations for Saw Stop, but the horrific, life changing injuries that a table saw is capable of inflicting means that this situation leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think contextually there are moral considerations, even obligations in this situation. I'm afraid that Sawstop is on the front line of this. Wouldn't it be nice if SawStop would just find a way. I feel this is a pressing issue and it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man (and their corporations) to sort it out, and wouldn't it be nice if they found away to do so rather than being forced to. This can be done with commercial gain: Bosch sell shock absorbers to car manfufacturers and electric motors to bike manufacturers. BMW outsource their engine manufacturing. I'm sure the tool manufacturers are well versed in buying in parts from suppliers. A scenereo might be that sawstop sold fewer saws but had their tech in every single table saw. It's not for me to agree commercial terms but it is for me to ask sawstop why they aren't doing what they can to prevent amputations in the workshop.
In answer to table saw injuries and would you prefer others to suffer these types of injuries: Was saw stop technology available at the time of these injuries and they chose not to buy this technology? How am I in any way responsible for any table saw injuries? People will still choose not to use the technology even if it was mandatory.
They have spent 20 years trying to get the companies to make them safer voluntarily only to be largely ignored. I am a carpenter, and I think the companies have allowed this issue to fester, the large price jump is in large part their fault for not working on this for twenty years with the writing being on the wall.
Government overreach. EPA, ATF, (pick your 3-letter gov't sponsored org, or 4 letter as in the CPSC.) all the same. All this government intrusion, messes up the whole idea of capitalism. If its a big issue customers, them them (us) rule with our pocketbook. This tax will not put anyone's fingers back on, nor will it guarantee it will ever happen again in this way or other way. If a consumer wants to have a saw with the tech, they should be able to freely decide for themself to purchase it, or not. CPSC will be sued.
![The Wall Song ร้องข้ามกำแพง | EP.215 | พาเวล นเรศ - พูห์ กฤติน | 17 ต.ค. 67 [1/5]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IUzrjuf60P4/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Gegagedigedagedago] NEW Help Gegagedigedagedago Nugget escape from Nikocado Avocado Challenge](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hJWnwRC2Fz8/mqdefault.jpg)
Watch Next: US Government Wants to Change Table Saws FOREVER! th-cam.com/video/kb6LRfGhr_g/w-d-xo.html
Table Saws I Have Used and Recommend:
Budget Option 1 - amzn.to/3SfUdXc
Budget Option 2 - amzn.to/3vGDKUj
Mid Tier Option - www.lowes.com/pd/DELTA-Contractor-Saws-10-in-Carbide-Tipped-Blade-15-Amp-Table-Saw/1001385562
SawStop I Have - amzn.to/3U8ZIJW
Push Block I Recommend for Safety - amzn.to/3OeCpug
Table Saw Push Stick - amzn.to/3OfQOXg
My Woodworking Business Building Course - sawduststartups.com
My New Tool Company - faithvalleytools.com
The full list of tools and supplies I recommend can be found on my website: www.731woodworks.com/recommended-tools
Greatest Free Gift I've Ever Received: story4.us/731Woodworks
Join the TUBAFOUR NATION through Patreon to get access to exclusive member only behind the scenes videos, member only livestreams, exclusive discounts, and other cool member only perks! www.patreon.com/731woodworks
If you use one of these Amazon and other affiliate links, I will receive a commission on qualifying purchases.
Greatest Free Gift I've Ever Received: story4.us/731Woodworks
Some other useful links:
Daily Tool Deals on my website: www.731woodworks.com/tool-deals
Subscribe to our email Newsletter to get new content alerts, sales, and more! mailchi.mp/7e44c16eefdc/731-woodworks-email-newsletter
Easy to Follow Build Plans - www.731woodworks.com/store
Outlaw's Board Butter - So Good it Should be Outlawed: www.731woodworks.com/store/boardbutter
Holy crap man, could you not post anymore links?
Saw Stop is absolutely not "giving away" anything. They are taking advantage of a spectacular timing issue to better their standing in a competitive market. He states several times that the implementation of the new rules would absolutely take place after their patent expired. He makes it very clear they are only giving access to the 840 patent. He does this several times in his statement. It is very clear this is a decisive move to solidify the company's public standing in a positive way to acquire the publics attention and future revenue.
(It is a brilliant marketing move.)
Yep. Can't blame them for doing it but people need to go beyond first-order thinking.
I've been leaving comments on youtube videos for 3 years about the patents expiring this year and next. They were supposed to expire about 5 years ago, but SawStop convinced the govenment to give them an extension. It was technically correct, but shouldn't have happened. SawStop has been extorting us with higher prices for a similar in feature and function saw to everything else on the market. Just with the novel safety feature. To price gouge for a safety feature is dirty. It was only going to get worse once the Festool parent bought them.
If you want to watch people behaving without regard for consequences, have a competition.
To take this further, he makes it clear that he is offering the services of his engineering team as consultants for implementing the technology (which admits that it isn't an easy transition, and implies a premium price tag).
Trumke had his whole speech ready to go, suggesting he wasn't surprised by the "bombshell," but instead was banking on it for his strategy. It's even possible that he encouraged it for precisely this moment.
The 840 patent also may only be one tiny part of the mechanism, as is typically the case with patents. The existence of alternative mechanisms doesn't speak to how financially feasible they are, either. Nuclear reactors are technically a viable alternative to gasoline engines, but nobody without a DoD contract is putting them into a vehicle for sale. The woman even reasonably predicts that the next complaint will be financial feasibility (since only one company is fully prepared to embrace this requirement, so the market will be at the feet of Sawstop for a while).
There's layer upon layer of maneuvering here, and if I guess correctly, we're only seeing the thinnest surface. I know just enough about laws and patents to realize how many dark corners there are here, and acknowledge that I have absolutely no idea what the real "subtext" of this argument was, but it's clear that the surface argument wasn't the real issue at all. Welcome to politics, folks.
The 840 patent does not expire in the next 3 years, which is why they are giving it away. SS says that other patents that may prevent a competitor from making their own saws safe are expiring within the 3 year compliance window, so are moot and don't need to be made free. There are surely a bunch of other patents, but these are probably specific to their exact implementation of the technology; with the main patents out of the way (freed or expired), it should be their competitors' job to be inspired by SS, not copy them (i.e., need access to every patent).
Overall, I think it's a generous move. They own the market for someone who wants a saw w/ anti-amputation tech. Their competitors keep throwing up the patents as a barrier when in fact they enjoy that they can sell saws for less than SS. The status-quo appeals to them; let SS have the premium safety-oriented market, we'll take the rest. Mandating safety will require SS to tighten margins because saws will become more comparable. On the other hand, by increasing the cost of traditional saws, it may make them close in price to SS and help consumers justify the additional spend. However, in that case consumers are choosing based on value and product quality, which is nothing but a good thing.
"You just made an incredible gift to the public."
No, he didn't. He claimed he'd do so if all of his competitors suddenly had a new regulatory handcuff placed on them, but with no actual guarantee or mechanism in place to execute the public release of the patent. Just "we'll totally do it, trust us."
If that statement about Bosch Reaxx being allowed to be sold since 2018 is true (which I am suspicious of), I’m kinda pissed at Bosch, as I like their system A LOT more because it’s reset-able. I would buy one yesterday over the sawstop. But, I’m suspicious of that statement as I’m sure that, after the lawsuit that SawStop brought, that Bosch had to sign some sort of agreement not to sell the saw for a certain time period, even after the patent had expired, and it’s probably hidden in some NDA somewhere.
Yeah, that would be interesting to know if true.
You're probably right and Bosch is probably just protecting themselves from more litigation! And based on the pompous nature of this guy and how he's talking to the commission I'd say if Bosch was to bring it back to market...SS would slap them with a new lawsuit so fast their head would spin!
@@731Woodworks Unfortunately, we’ll never know because that’s the nature of NDAs, but typically, when you get caught infringing on patents, there is typically more punishment than just a fine. You kinda get put in “timeout” for a period after the patent expires, because you jumped the gun
My sawstop has never misfired. If the cost of replacing the blade-stop module is a significant cost-factor because you are having multiple activations, you definitely should NOT be woodworking.
@@brucejohnson1264I am 100% with you. I can understand the appeal of the Reaxx as a lower cost alternative, but choosing it over the SawStop only because it saves a $100 consumable is just horrible economics. If a saw saved me my digits, and or hundreds of thousands in medical bills, the last thing I would be worried about is the cost of replacing a $100. Few people know that only losing a finger or two in some cases is a silver lining. Some partial lacerations result in protracted nerve shock-like sensations which make its victims beg their doctors for a full amputation.
Thank you, Matt for investing so much time researching all of this and putting it out there for us.
My reading is that PTI is distorting the data. The key metric should be injuries PER HOUR OF USE. Of course there are fewer cabinet and production saws compared to job site or portable saws, but those professional saws run ALL DAY LONG. My job site saw runs, maybe, one hour a day (1-2 minutes at a time), where a cabinet/professional saw will exceed that in one month. Thus, you can't look at injuries PER SAW, you need to look at injuries PER HOUR OF USE.
I understand your point with a large shop, but you also have to take into all the cabinet saws that are in small shops and hobbyist shops that sometimes are not used for days or even weeks at a time. So your hours of use/type of saw might be less than you think for cabinet saws. You might be right with your thinking I do not know. I am just throwing this out there.
@@richardlug6139while true, can you think of anyone using a bench top/jobsite saw continuously everyday that would bring its “per hour” numbers up? Even if 75% of cabinet saws are only used occasionally, there are still 25% of them that are used every day that drag those numbers up, and there are far more benchtop/jobsite saw that sit in people garages/basements that get used once every other year. My dad has a benchtop saw that hasn’t been used in 5+ years I bet.
@@richardlug6139 Why does hours of use matter in this context? I understand where you're coming from, but the goal would be to reduce the number of injuries, not the number of injuries per hour of use. The fact of the matter is that if 72% of the injuries occur on cabinet saws and AIM tech would have prevented all of them, then having AIM tech on all cabinet saws would prevent 72% of those injuries. Even if you ignore that, the fact that many cabinet saws are used in a professional setting and see much more use only supports the argument that the presence of AIM tech is much more important on those saws. They run longer and have more opportunity to cause injury, so the importance of safety features is also more important.
Brettski74. Sounds like you just answered your own question
@@davidchilders3574 Well yes, I provided my position why hours of use does not matter, so I don't get your response. I guess you're just agreeing with me that hours of use is irrelevant in determining where AIM tech implementation can have the most impact in reducing table saw injuries.
Saw stop: make your own technology.
Also saw stop: sues every company that try’s.
Bosch had a system but saw stop got it blocked in the US with a lawsuit.
"yeah, but NOW, we're saying we're going to let the patent expire"
After saying it's his companies duty to protect their own patents
Sawstop has the commissioner in its pocket, and it shows
@@marcorock101 10000%
This is not entirely accurate. Before sawstop ever made a single saw, they were trying to license out their technology to any and all manufacturers. They almost had a deal with Bosch, but Bosch backed out. So after that they decided to make their own saws. It's a good example of how one manufacture (Bosch and others) are reluctant to do things that are good for us all because it would make it hard to compete with other manufacturers. But making it a rule for all manufacturers creates a level playing field that benefits us all. And prices will come down eventually due to competition.
@@headybrew bosch tried it, market said no
Sawstop wants money, so they'll paint themselves as the good guys to push for a useless mandate. They couldn't compete fairly, so they chose to play dirty
Would be nice to see the actual injury data. Which saws were used, if training was provided or any other details
Can't make rules based on emotions and blurry data
@@marcorock101"market said no"... Yes, but that's exactly what I mean by a level playing field. There are some things that don't make sense for a single manufacturer to do in a competitive market where other manufacturers aren't going to do it. But these things do make sense if all manufacturers do it. Without a rule, all manufacturers simply won't choose to do it. Sometimes rules are good. You can't play football without rules. It would just be a big mess and nobody would have any fun.
When you buy the table saw, you would also accept the risk of cutting something off. That is why Sawstop is a company: some people are not comfortable with the risk, so they are willing to pay the price. So to try to force everybody to implement this one technology is not the way to do it.
Isn’t the main point though, that there are NUMEROUS PATENTS that are required to fulfill the requirements of safety. Sort through the bS.
My thoughts exactly. SawStop makes it sound like only this 1 patent is stopping people from implementing the technology, but they know that’s not true. They also, most likely, have already developed the “next generation” technology that builds off of the current patent, which they inevitably will patent yet again, making the “donation” of this patent useless. A company that goes through these types of hurdles to block anyone else from even licensing the tech, to all of a sudden say “hey, if this rule goes through, we’ll give y’all the patent” isn’t doing it in good faith. They’re doing it knowing full well they have a pair of aces up their sleeve, and that the moment this patent is released, they’ll have another one ready to drop that supersedes it.
I may have been born, but I wasn’t born yesterday, and I’m not going to allow the “shock” of SawStops announcement blind me from reality. It was actually nice to see the chairman of the CPSC kinda see through the crap and push back on SawStop.
@@nathan1sixteen The SawStop CEO even said as much. He said several other patents would be expiring in the next 3 years so he wouldn't need to give them up. I also noticed that Mr. Trumka said they could implement this in less than the 3 years that had been proposed since SS was giving up this single patent. The SS CEO absolutely came across as disingenuous.
@@nathan1sixteen
"They also, most likely, have already developed the “next generation” technology that builds off of the current patent, which they inevitably will patent yet again, making the “donation” of this patent useless."
I disagree there. So what if they develop new technology? The old technology will still meet the proposed government requirements, so is not useless.
"They’re doing it knowing full well they have a pair of aces up their sleeve,..."
One apparent ace is that they are willing to work with the other companies to implement the one donated patent. But presumably that implementation help will be for a fee. So Sawstop donates the patent in the hope that many of the companies will then pay Sawstop to help them implement the technology. There's more than one way to earn money!
They are only offering the technology if there is a legislative requirement for it,and it sounds like they will only legislate it if SawStop provides the technology.SawStop definitely has obsoleting technology at the ready.Otherwise,the saw wouldn’t be able to compete in the market at its current price point.SawStop performance is not a game changer.
There will always be new improvements and patents on those improvements. This is true of all technology. That doesn't preclude others from copying the original sawstop design if the patents are expired. Nor does it stop others from copying the core ideas which are now public domain and finding other ways. It is also possible to license the current state-of the art tech from Sawstop, then develop your own improvements, patent those improvements, and then cross license those improvements back to sawstop. Eventually this results in both companies having free access to the other's patents. This is how many industries function. What you don't get to do is free-ride on sawstop's innovation.
Wow. REALLY appreciate the time invested in creating this video. And your dialogue is on par. Great Job! Really cool to see you grow over the years. Really blessed I came across your channel in the early days. Keep em coming!
Much appreciated!
@@731Woodworks Bosch is non profit, so it operates differently to other companies , it has invented many thing that has been available , X-Lock in grinders Makita use that , jigsaw saw blade U (old) and T (new) connector, never heard Bosch blocking any company using those.
DeWalt (Bosch , Makita a.s.o) make saw models that are banned in US , table mitre saw combos , why it's banned in US ?
@@pete_lind- partially correct. Bosch is not a non-profit, the major shareholder (which doesn't get to vote) is a not-for-profit organization. People also tend to confuse non-profit and not-for-profit organizations. While I'm far from an expert on the exact differences, the way I was explained it awhile ago was that non-profit aren't allowed to make a profit, whereas a not-for-profit can make a profit (and top executives can make big salaries), they aren't driven by profit like a profit corporation of shareholders.
Regardless of the fine lines of non-profit & not-for-profit, Bosch GmbH is a private corporation for profit from my understanding.
@@pete_lind Bosch the company is for profit, while the majority owner (without voting rights),
the Robert Bosch Stiftung GmbH, is a non-profit foundation. Robert Bosch Gmbh (notice without the Stiftung) pays out dividends/profits to its shareholders, but _most_ of those profits go to a charitable foundation. The Bosch family owns 8% of Robert Bosch GmbH with 7% voting rights, while the Robert Bosch Industrial Trust KG (translated from Robert Bosch Industrieltreuhand KG) owns 0.01% of Robert Bosch GmbH but has 93% of voting rights.
This means that Robert Bosch Industrial Trust KG basically makes all decisions for Robert Bosch GmbH without getting "any" profits, while Robert Bosch Stiftung GmbH receives the majority of profits without making any decisions.
Apparently Robert Bosh GmbH invests 9% of revenue on R&D, double the industry average of 4.7%, which lowers the profit that may be paid out to shareholders (which also probably is part of the reason for keeping the decisions and the profiteers of those decisions separate).
As someone who has had an injury from a table saw, I'd love to have this technology. That being said, I'm 100% AGAINST the government mandating it. I got my hand caught in a table saw. Know what caused it? Me, plain and simple. Wasn't the table saws fault, wasn't the manufacturer's fault, mine and mine alone.
Another quick observation. The witness railing for this new rule noted that the number of injuries related to table saws has been pretty much flat since 2010. Well, the number of table saws in use has absolutely not been flat in that amount of time. That means by definition that the injury rate has actually gone down and anyone that can do basic math can figure that out.
Finally! A person who takes responsibility for his own mistakes! I salute you sir! Most everyone who screws up plays the blame game and tries to make someone else responsible for the mistake they made. Where on earth did common sense go? I wonder how many TH-cam videos will be out there showing how to disable the saw stop feature to avoid the expense of having to replace the cartride, blade and whatever else gets torn up with every activation. As I understand it, repairing a saw after activation is a very expensive thing in itself.
@@davidbrittenham4631 Thank you, I appreciate it. I've always observed that people that don't take responsibility never get any better, so I made the decision to own my own mistakes.
Common sense is, unfortunately, not common anymore.
Bean counters. You just have to luv em. Wow, what a jab at Feldman by the other commissioner. I'm glad that he said thank you to the CEO. Someone needed to. Then he becomes a horses behind.
Auto manufacturers reacted exactly the same way, when Volvo gave the public the 3 point seatbelt. This saved people from flying through the window…and the manufacturers didn’t want to ‘invest’ in that technology at that time either.
Well, assuming the data is accurate, it looks like your stereotypical carpenter and contractor who doesn't care about safety using a jobsite saw with no riving knife or bladeguard is not the problem. Looks like it's mostly cabinet and big furniture shops that have the problem. Folks who are spending thousands of dollars already to buy big cabinet saws. Folks who are running a saw full-time all day long (who likely get complacent because of that) are where the problems come in. It looks like the carpenters running a jobsite saw on a construction site are actually taking things seriously. Which makes sense, they aren't using the saw all day long. They are making a cut here and there, then doing something else. Because of that, they likely are maintaining more focus on doing the cut safely, then a guy doing the same cut 1000 times a day on a big cabinet saw. Also, carpenters and contractors are likely using miter saws more often for cutting 2x4s and trim and only occasionally need to use the table saw to rip a board down.
Of course that is assuming the data is accurate. Also...how many of those cabinet saw injuries are from older saws that lack a riving knife? They say the data didn't change much in the last 20 years since riving knives, but they also note that most of the injuries are from cabinet saws. So...how many of those injuries in the last 20 years are from new guys getting into the trade (and thus have a newer saw with a riving knife) vs older guys (or new guys who bought a used cabinet saw without a riving knife)? There is missing data here that is needed to get a proper picture of who exactly is getting injured and why.
I'm not saying that mandating the safety tech wouldn't be a good thing in the long run (it very well might), but I'd like to see the data where a sawstop feature would have saved an injury that's happened where someone was using a riving knife and blade guard. Do we have that data? Wouldn't that be useful in determining whether the safety feature is as essential as believed that we need to force the added cost on consumers?
And it's not just the complacency factor.... Think of the number of cuts or hours of use of the jobsite saw vs furniture shop saws. The amount of running/cutting time on the cabinet saws far exceeds that of the jobsite saws. For instance, I guarantee that automotive body shops work on more white cars than brown cars. Are brown cars magically safer than white cars? No. White cars make up 23% of those on the road whereas brown cars only represent 1.7% of cars out there.
“Why do you want these horrific injuries to continue to happen to people?” Is such a disingenuous and dishonest question to ask. Last I checked, not one single tool manufacturer tells you to touch the spinning saw blade. In fact, they tell you not to touch the spinning saw blade and techniques to help prevent it from happening.
That Mr Trumpka is such a slimey slimey dude
I always find it telling when a government representative is always stating that the "rich investors" are the only beneficiary of profits from a company. They always forget about the 401k's, MF's, EFT's, etc. that many people have invested in that also benefit.
This is a money grab. Self-inflicting table saw injuries is an ADULT CHOICE to do what you should not want to do, and I'm fine with dummies losing digits but not fine with increased saw costs to cater to said dummies. I've never cut myself on a table saw because I use them properly. Pusher sticks are not rocket surgery.
Find this stuff very interesting. I know takes a ton of time and effort to research it and then put together the videos so I appreciate the condensed version your giving us on this as it progresses.
Glad you enjoyed it
I agree - thank you Matt for all this hard work breaking this down for us!
EXCELLENT video and summery. Appreciate all the research and effort brother.
Thank you @SawStop for lobbying more nanny-state legislation that'll be used to generate more "rules" brought to us by the fourth branch or government. Just another reason to never buy your products. And thank you @731Woodworks for the breakdown and keeping us informed.
Don't get me started. All it does it make me wonder who in the government is making money on this proposed legislation. It's not nobody that's for sure !!
@@Alan_Edwards If you want to know if the rule is going to pass, just watch the politicians investments.
Agreed...this is first rate bullshit. I'll never ever own a Sawstop product...ever. Trying to force kindergarten safety rules on the industry to solidify their profits and future as a company using people who have had accidents to tug on heart strings of the weak minded, "please save us mister government" half. If you like the tech, buy it, but don't force YOUR solution to YOUR fear on me. 😡
*sawstop* "we invite you to get in the game"
Also sawstop, "oh hey bosch, it looks like you're trying to get in the game, we're going to sue you"
Agreed, Bosch got screwed but Sawstop (now owned by TTS) said they are going to step aside.
@@Trickmanii They said they'll let one patent expire
Which is highly unlikely, since the CEO began his statement by saying it's their job to protect their patents. It's a Trojan horse
"All about safety" but would ensure nobody could come up with similar technology in 20 years.... It's about money
@@marcorock101of course it's about money if I invented the technology & took all the risk I would protect my investment as well & so would you. The other players don't give a shit about you either because the inventor offered to sell them the tech first they declined. That's when he went on his own building the saw stop. These other companies are billion dollar manufactures they can pay to retool & if it cost $200-$300 more per saw its money well spent. I recently became an amputee id give everything I have to have my leg back.
@@larryriffett918they probably declined because they dug into it an seen all the ins an outs. I used to like saw stop but after helping a friend in his shop that has one I realized they've got big problems. It's very annoying when ya go to run a board through an the saw kicks off because of a little moisture in the board
Dear Volvo. I thank you for not being saw stop.
Your technology saved more than a finger, it saved my life.
Dear saw stop. Lay down your sword and be like Volvo. Your time is nearing an end, just let it go. Well buy cheaper tech once you release your strangle hold and that's okay. In fact in mandalore, they say "this is the way".
Thank you for your time researching and providing this information to the masses Matt!
I HATE appeals to emotion and even worse when he simply cuts her off instead of letting her finish talking. That to me shows he simply has an agenda and doesn't care about answer that don't immediately satisfy him.
I also firmly believe that the commission is actively lying to people about the total injuries like you called out in the start of the video. After all, the CPSC only has the ability to make rules that apply to consumer products (which applies to what the average consumer could afford even though technically a flush enough consumer could buy a business saw) with OSHA having the rulemaking power over businesses and if they're lumping business and consumer injuries into one bucket, this changes the game and likely will provide a significant area of attack for lawsuits that likely would can the rule permanently. Not only that, while tragic, I wouldn't be surprised if what the AIM techs prevent isn't actually the brunt of tablesaw injuries as kickback is far more likely and easier to induce and would definitely be lumped into table saw injuries.
I wonder if the number of children injured by cribs is any less since thw drop-side ban. I also wonder how many back injuries have occurred due to not having a drop-side crib.
@@dr.emilschaffhausen4683 mandatory baby car seats CAUSED back injuries.
Of course there is obfuscation at work. They never discriminate between serious and non-serious injuries in the statistics. They just bring up the serious ones as anecdotal reports (and of course elaborate ad nauseum) when they repeat the stories, and completely omit the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of reported injuries are minor and do not require any significant medical treatment.
@@dr.emilschaffhausen4683 Maybe, but you highlight a huge pet peeve. Cribs and children and things that can potentially hurt other non-consenting people, is one thing. But, a saw technology that is meant to protect someone from THEMSELVES, is an entirely other thing. Enough of this nanny state bullshit.
@@RossRadford I'm in agreement here.
Hi Matt... Thank for the update on the Saw Stop and the Patent wars and government oversight... a lot of good information. you put a lot of time and effort into this issue! Year before last I bought a Track Saw, I got because of a very generous Rockler Christmas gift card I received. The Track Saw has me working less with my Contractor style Table Saw... I know a lot of people would love to own a SawStop and I remember when you got yours as a gift from a Church member, that was a grand gesture on that persons part. When I go into my shop... it's safety safety safety... that's one of the reasons I watch You Tube as much as I do; I want to learn something new, but also learn a safety tip or two at the same time. This was a good informative You Tube, there are sure a lot of issues here... Thanks for the time you put into this!!!
Without more detailed injury stats they aren't making a fair judgement.
1. Only saws impacted by their purview injuries can be considered
2. Types of injuries - Of the amount of injuries, how many would specifically be prevented by AIM technology, as opposed to kickback. If they are this adamant on safety, they would first ensure what area of tablesaws should they focus on and improve safety of.
I appreciate the effort you’ve made to keep your subscribers and other viewers aware of this important issue.
As you know I work for the government and I say it to my coworkers and leads everyday “stop creating mountains out of mole hills” the government is very good at that because someone is always trying to get noticed and make a name for themselves in the government.
all governments are always a perpetual burden on its people
We're going to give away our patent for the public good because it was about to expire. However, you will find that we have patented all kinds of other little things that will get in your way of implementing this technology.
I think Sawstop is playing games. I doubt I'd ever be a customer of theirs if I had a choice.
Also just because the Saw Stop CEO is being snarky and perhaps successfully deflecting some criticisms doesn't make him a good guy in this AT ALL. Sleazy IMO.
Are you saying you currently don't have a choice?
What is Sleazy about this? The patent He is offering to make public domain could be locked down for several more decades
The Rep who is trying to deflect is basicly saying That Volvo making seatbelt wasn't good enough because Volvo still had a patent on their belt buckle design
they have been sleazy since day one when they tried to get the patent mandated on all saw manufacturers by the government. These guys are the bottom of the barrel. If they were truly concerned about safety, they would make it free for all like Volvo did with seatbelts. I will never buy a Sawstop.
These are big companies my man, there is nothing human about them. They have to do all they can to maximize profits and being "good" or "bad" has nothing to do with business in the US. What will make our investors the most money is the only thing that matters, full stop. Stealing tech and protecting your patents is big business.
There is a human talking but he is legally obligated to do what he is doing. That's why so many mentally unfit people run and defend these companies. They can do inhumane things and be fine with it because they are rewarded grossly for it. Instead of you know paying their workers more or making products cheaper and better.
We need to stop being surprised by companies doing what's best for profits when it's what they have to do. That conversation is done. And that's all this is.
Your closing statement says you love this technology but the increased barrier to entry is too high for you to agree with it. I would counter by saying in the short-term, people can still buy used saws for cheap. In the long-term (say 10 years from now) they still can buy used - but also, this rule will push makers (which have massive R&D budgets) into innovating these safety features in cheaper and simpler ways.
The one glitch in your argument is that the used saws will no longer be "for cheap" as the demand for them increases
SawStop is disingenuous here. Sure, they are making the gesture of giving away the one patent, but only if the rule is implemented. "Our patents are expiring, so will you please make a rule to protect and enhance our market share after we can no longer stop market entry?"
Whether SawStop is disingenuous is irrelevant to me as a consumer. These other companies had the opportunity to implement safety features into their products, but they chose not to. I'm glad the CPSC is forcing these billion dollar companies to implement stronger safety standards for people like me.
@@eliporter3980I believe you are incorrect, sawstop actively stopped the manufacturers from introducing any blade retraction safety. Look up the Bosch table saw lawsuit.
They are offering to make the primary patent, the core functionally of the system - which is not due to expire public domain, if the government will mandate that it, or something similiar is mandated
What you are doing is saying that Volvo giving up the patent on seatbelts is not enough if they still held a patent on their buckle design
@@eliporter3980 if it matters so much for you, buy a saw stop.
I’d buy a Bosch Reaxx yesterday if it were available here in the US. the fact it doesn’t damage the blade is a huge plus. I have an inkling SawStop is going to patent exactly such a mechanism-an upgrade-which is why they are fine with releasing the current patent to the public. They’ll still be one step ahead.
Trumka posted a highly edited video to his Facebook of him berating the PTI representative. It's all stagecraft, which is why he didn't allow her to make a response. Makes me wonder if he's being paid. He failed to mention that the first two people he asked about were not using proper safety precautions. Their injuries were tragic, but preventable. I'd recommend that anyone who is annoyed with this rule to look it up and comment.
Of COURSE he's being paid off. But even if he weren't, it is IN HIS NATURE to be an extortionist and blackmailer. Check the political allegiances. Check his bloodline. He is a pure administrative state brown shirt.
Any feelings you have about it, 31:28 says it all. Billions dollars in dividends and buybacks for shareholders instead of safety investments or improvements in 20 years. Really only regulation will force them to innovate, so I have changed my opinion on this and believe government is doing what it should for public safety and why we have government.
I’ve been a carpenter for 28 years and always been careful where I place my hands or any body part, in running a carpentry business one must have safety awareness and discipline to run a shop at every moment, that’s why rules are created . If you sidestep your discipline, then your an idiot for injuring yourself.They’re complaining about tables saws to be dangerous, well what about the upright saws that cut wood, metal and frozen meat. Where is the safety to that? The blade is wide open at a high speed and it’s a flying guillotine when it snaps. The commission are bunch of sourpusses and with no experience in using a machine they need to be taken to a shop and see for themselves
The problem is when people are forced to work faster and faster that's when mistakes are made and injuries happen.
No one buys and uses a table saw with the thought of cutting off a finger or worse. But in reality, you can be extremely careful and all it would take is something like a bee sting at the wrong time for an accident to happen.
What I would like to know is how much it will cost a manufacture to implement AIM on a table saw and will that cost be multiplied at each step until it finally reaches the consumer. In other words, if it cost the manufacture $150, is the consumer going to see a $150 price increase or a $450 price increase. My guess is that the consumer will pay the $450.
The fact of the matter is that SS, with or without their patents in the way, are pushing this requirement to end users who do not want it but will have to pay for it. Even if they open their patents, this will increase their profits and market share because they are and have been ready for a long time to sell these saws, that is what they do. Bosh might be able to also ramp up and do this, but other brands will be years behind, or just incapable of offering the systems. How does this benefit the end user? It doesn't. If you are worried about not being able to keep your fingers away from the blade, you can go and buy a SS right now, but for the rest of us, who do not want this, it will force us to pay for it, even if we don't want to use it, and ultimately benefitting SS.
All the top sellers have money for their own research & devoplment. Besides he's giving up what they've been whinning about for years for free. Now what are these other multi million dollar companies gonna whine about.
Giving up just one patent is ridiculous. Think about a automobile, would one free patent help you that much?
A table saw is a mechanical and electrical device. Having a free patent on the mechanical side does nothing to help the electrical side.
Is that one patent covering the flesh sensor, the brake, the drop mechanism? Just one doesn't help much.
Also Americans are cheap. If the prices go up even 10% people will buy used ones or make them out of a portable circular saw.
@@a9ball1 It is not the responsibility of SS to give up their company to other companies who refuse to do anything other than pander to their investors. SS gave them what they needed to develope effective and safe systems. Most of these other companies have already developed their own systems but refuse to implement it because they would either have to reduce their profits, increase prices or both. SS is not the gatekeeper here. It is the consumers who do not want to pay more and it is the companies who refuse to sell at a loss.
@@a9ball1 If we go back to the stated multiple times example of seat belts, it absolutely did.
@@aristotlethedecent6675I think a table saw safety system is just a tad more complicated than seatbelts.
What a load of crap from the Sawstop CEO. Just release the patents if they really wanted to 'protect woodworkers'. They don't. They want to make money. PERIOD.
Trumka is a typical bureaucrat pinhead. Now that things have changed, give me an immediate yes or no, because I have tearjerking photos and a mustache.
It runs in his family.
It was very, very aggravating listening to Trumka's inquisition. While he raised a few good questions (not all though), he was grandstanding the entire time. He was hostile from the get go, and it was clear that he had no interest anything the other two people had to say, or actually having a dialog. I'm a woodworker, and I own a contractor saw and I plan to buy a new floor model saw a few years from now, so this definitely effects me. This is a pretty important topic, and I wish those involved would grow up and serve the public, and not their own interests.
Looks like SawStop lobby worked pretty well on him.
@@refactorearyeah just like the lobby worked on Feldman as well they were both rude in their questioning.
Trumpka is definitely a jerk. People have accidents. Nothing will change that. His examples, while tragic, don't mean squat.
804 is just one of many patents. Its tantamount to giving away the airbag patent or ABS patents without all of the other key developments for its implementation and deployment. Sawstop started to wanting to license their tech when they started out. The consumer has a choice NOW. Buy with Sawstop or buy with another vendor. If the rule is adopted then a couple of outcomes are evident. Sawstop will license their other technologies. Other saws pricing will become more inline with Sawstop. Older saw resale value will go up some. And some folks will adopt more dangerous more affordable methods. Or the CPSC could implement the rule say starting in 2030 giving the manufacturers a 6 year window to more thoroughly develop their own tech.
I have seen first hand Sawstop save fingers at a school. I would NEVER use anything but a Sawstop in an educational environment nor would any child including grand children use anything but a Sawstop. Having said that my personal shop has 3 conventional table saws. With riving knife. With blade guard. And no children are allowed to use my shop.
Start with the bug cabinet saws. Then implement to smaller saws over the course of a few years.
I wonder if Trumka is on the take/getting payola from SawStop. He asks Orenga a question, but before she's able to answer he interrupts her and doesn't allow her to answer the question(s). From the start, he seems combative and hostile, and I wonder if he's on SawStop's payroll. (not SS directly, of course, but through a third party "special interest" group)
I thought the same. He’s a politician and grandstanding as per usual.
His bias stinks of corruption
@@marcorock101 right. Any idiot who says something as stupid as “why do you want these people to get hurt?” is either dishonest, paid-off or an idiot.
The patent attorney Matt interviewed in a previous video had an interesting idea on who could be pushing this. He suggested it could be insurance companies. That makes a lot of sense. They have much deeper pockets than tool manufacturers..
While I thought the same thing about Trumpka, when you think about it, you could make a similar argument about Feldman. While I am against this rule and in that sense somewhat aligned with Feldman's position, if I'm honest I'd have to admit that some of his questioning and responses to Matt Howard seemed inconsistent with what Howard had just said and to some extent possibly unreasonable. It's hard to know for sure - at least for someone like me with only some surface level understanding of the patents involved and what's required to implement them in a practical saw.
I have an older Craftsman table saw (about 20 years old) I have no plans of upgrading but a retrofit kit that would add a riving knife would be great. I do use an overhead dust collection/guard, I think that would go a long ways towards saw safety.
I wonder how did they get that data about injuries?! How many cabinet table saws are on the market as we speak, how many users across the last 10 years of usage and how many injuries during those 10 years?! That's how they should get their numbers, that's how you make stats. I didn't even mention if the cabinet table saw users are using the riving knife or the blade guard in the equation.
They just want to please whoever pays more to the commission's budget. Always follow the money. This is NOT for "the consumer' safety", not for our safety as professionals. Do your own research in your area.
Cabinet and contractor saws are more powerful, wonder how many of those injuries were kick-back and other injuries just from a more powerful motor.
@@gnic76 The talk of "injuries" did seem a bit vague and I wondered whether this was only injuries involving blade contact or whether it included other types of injuries such as from projectiles.
I just had a tablesaw accident for the first time. It was a minor accident, but it really messed me up mentally. I have been using a tablesaw since I was a child. But now I'm too scared to use one without higher safety features. I'm looking at sawstop now. But like everyone else, the cost is a major problem.
If cabinet saws are where most injuries are happening but are not included to require aim tech, that leaves benchtop saws. If i understand this correctly, im not that smart by the way, it sounds to me like the numbers are being fudged to make most saws you see on jobsites require aim tech, which i can almost garauntee there are more benchtops sold per year than cabinet saws. Something wierd is going on here. Wish i was smarter lol. If im wrong feel free to correct me
That the price would go up is not really an argument imo.
Cars are effing expensive, mainly because of all the mandatory safety equipment that it has to have. (Seatbelts, airbags, side impact protection, collapsable steeringcolumns and so on and so on.)
There is no option for someone to say 'ooh ill take the model without ABS, airbags, and seatbelt'
So initially the price would go up, and when production ramps up, and development moves on prices will come down, smaller better tech might be developed that allows the same for routers and other scary things 😅
In any case it is interesting to see all this play out... Like every party is right from its own POV.
The thing im most sour about is that Sawstop refuses to set up shop in Europe...
I'm going to call it now. There will be clauses in insurance policies that will allow the insurance companies to deny policies for anyone who hasn't abided by the laws and purchased one of these pricey saws. The hand greases the hand. The Government does nothing that is in our concern, it's all about profits. Somebodies getting a nice kickback from the insurance companies, I guarantee this.
come on. Sounds like you need to take off your aluminum foil hat. The companies dont care about safety. They just care about profits.
@@Gawron28just like SawStop. They know the patent issue isn't solved and they will just litigate anyone that tries to comply with this new rule creating the monopoly they've been after. If they cared about safety they would have licensed the technology years ago.
I’d be willing to wager that Trumka has already had his palm greased by SawStop. I too will continue to use my old Craftsman contractor saw
@@Gawron28 I don't exactly agree with him but I think you would find there is a lot of truth to what he said if you did a deep dive into the last 100 years and insurance companies/ government action
All battery operated tools have been made safer, grinder blades stop in under 1 sec, drill stop if it has suddenly position changes over 15°, tool stops if it is dropped , circular and plunge saws stop on kickback (corded ones jump at user)
Most important thing , realize that it is a machine made to cut , it does not care if it is your hand .
Matt, first, *fantastic* job on this video! Incredibly well organized, well-researched video. I can only imagine how much time you put into this video. Second, great job on bringing out all the major issues around this complex issue. As someone who has experienced a table saw injury (in my own woodshop, on a contractor saw, 21 years ago), I have a great interest in the subject and have followed it for a long time. I am much more comfortable working in my woodshop today, with my SawStop PCS. It wasn't the saw's fault, it was mine, but the change is real. Imagine how many lives SawStop could change my offering this patent to the industry--all it takes now is for those companies to *think of their customers first* and adopt it. It's that simple. Not everyone will commit to buying at a higher price, of course, but the market will drive prices down over time and everyone will benefit from safer saws.
I just feel that the only reason that sawstop is willing to give up this patent at this time is because it is old technology and will soon be surpassed. Plus to drop this information like sawstop did is totally unprofessional. It was a tactic to catch anyone and everyone off guard. Totally unacceptable! Of course this lady is not gonna makes snap decision! No one would. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth with sawstop. That smug attitude is off putting to me.
I kind of took it as the Sawstop CEO needed this forum to drop the information. The key here was that he will only make the patent public IF the CPSC goes forth with placing the rule. Clearly he knows that the CPSC wants him to license it now so they can gather cost data and such from other manufacturers such as Grizzly once they put the tech into a saw. They seem stuck on that where as the CEO has said I'll release the patent, then the other companies can do their work from there. So I'm not 100% sure he intended to take everyone off guard vs was this just the right place and right time to make this presentation to the right forum of people? He is now on record in an official hearing stating his intent to release the patent IF they make the rule.
Was also interesting when he basically said you want numbers, go talk to Bosch and ask them why they are not selling their saw since they have been able to since 2018 but are not!
It was sawstops way of making themselves look good to the regulatory board. Basically, they’re trying to brown nose the CSPC into approving the rule and forcing the rest of the industry into SawStops lap. You have to remember, the mechanism is only part of the process. SawStop has 20 year of knowledge and data on how to do this. They will make a killing in the consulting side of things if this ruling goes through, so they’re all for it, so of course they pull a publicity stunt like this. If they really cared, they would donate that patent to the public right now (I believe there’s only a year or so left on it anyways). And, if that patent really was the key difference, than they wouldn’t donate it at all.
I believe Saw Stop is not altruistic here in the slightest. All of the moves are attempts at manipulating the laws and market into their favor and damn the public interest. As I said elsewhere I would always be a customer of their competitors in the future if I have a choice.
my guess is that trumpka knew what sawstop had planned…otherwise he couldn’t have had a prepared question to the manufacturing association lawyer. the pictures also make the “if we could save everyone case” which will never happen. just because we are 21st century humans and just because there is technology, it doesn’t not implicitly follow the end of all bad things. A table saw with AIM technology will not be the only devices used to cut wood, nor will table saws be the only machine used to process the timber. is no lie that a mercedes has safety features chevrolet doesn’t have. so why don’t we require everyone to buy a mercedes or pay to have everyone license what ever the 2024 equivalent of the the AIM technology in cars is? since drunk drivers kill, why don’t we require all manufacturers to install an ignition interlock? mr trumpka lives in a world of his own creation and imposes his value set on the rest of us.
I totally agree. They did it for optics 100% and knowing they would have a temporary monopoly and cost their competition butt loads of money. Where was this caring approach thru the years when they were suing anyone who tried to copy it ??!!
Read between the lines the ceo said they can develope their own tec but if the infringe on other patents they will sue
Bosch had a safety system but saw stop sued them for patent infringement.
Correct - they then resolved that paent infringement issue and Bosch chose not to sell the product to the US public
Correct... but that doesn't in any way dispute what was said here. In fact, that lawsuit was specifically addressed in the hearing.
I can mention a single part of a much larger story too. What's your point?
@@CGoody564 The fact that the comment I was responding to was a half truth, it was trying to imply Saw stop is trying to stop people having safer saws - but the truth is that there is nothing stopping them right now
The CPSC goes overboard too often.
I would love the see Trumka's money trail. He seems to have a hard on for this. Lowes and Home Depot prices are the true gate keepers. They sell the most tables saws and MFGs know Home Depot and Lowes customers are price sensitive. Tables Saws are not out here on their own cutting fingers and limbs. People are out her cutting other fingers and limbs. People are cutting themselves on table saws they purchased.
He's in on it, yup, campign funding up the wahoo. 840 is part of it, disconnecting the blade from drive is the easy part, beating the electrical sensing is the hard part.
After his statement about other larger companies having more patents than they have, I read the saw stop CEO's comment to mean they would discuss a way to cross license their patent if, and when the other companies cross license their patents to saw stop.
How nice. Sawstop is willing to allow others to use their patented technology BUT only when it will force their competitors to increase the cost of their saws...
And become dependent upon this in their manufacturing process so they can drop the hammer on them downstream. This clown isn't offering free licensing in perpetuity.
I believe that any technology would at some point step on Sawstops toes and legal action would ensue.
@@chuckschillingvideos Making the patent public domain (as they were saying) _is_ for perpetuity. Look up public domain and how that means _anyone_ can use what's in the public domain without payment or permisison from anyone else.
Thanks for taking the time to keep everyone informed on this!!! Would you consider sharing your approach to table saw safety?
I find Mr. Trumka's questions about the poor people who suffered severe injuries problematic. Any of those people could have purchased a saw with safety features. It was a choice probably based on price that they (for the most part) could have made. That being said, I applaud TTS and hope all saws will adopt better Safety systems.
That makes the assumption that every casual buyer is even aware of the different safety systems
Thank you! Thumbs up to the horizon! It will probably take 3 years to get all the rules written and approved, given the process. I am informed on this topic now. I have 2 table saws, cabinet and work site and will probably not replace either with an AIM saw. If my grandchildren want to use a table saw, a SawStop will arrive in my shop tomorrow.
There is another strategic advantage to Saw Stop offering this patent to the public - The substantial added expense to a competitor's least expensive saws makes Saw Stop more competitive in the market at the lower end. Their technology and its implementation is mature.
Trumka is dense or disingenuous. TTS are not thinking of consumers, but only their bottom line. They have no interest in giving anything away except a shaky patent that's going to expire soon anyway. What they know is that they have countless of additional patents that extend the original designs, as well as knowing that a lot of "manufacturers" don't do their own design work, leaving them having to work with TTS and license.
Table saw injuries for consumer models are demonstrably low compared to many other tools - the saw stats alone from this video allude to that. This is a really bad precedent being considered here.
The first guy questioning TTS CEO was on point. Get with FRAND licensing terms NOW. A "promise" in this hearing means nothing. Not binding. The patent has to be made available to the public before any decisions are made, not held as extortion as the CEO is proposing.
I hate when bureaucrats ("politicians") do this crap in hearings. They go the emotional route, cutting off responses, and iterating narratives that misrepresent the other side. Unless the other side is repeating prepared statements that evade the point of the questions.
When they are done with the table saw they'll go after others. The jointer, the miter saw,. the circular saw, shoot, I've injured myself drilling through joists with 1 inch spiral bit that caught. SMH
It looked like one commissioner was paid by one company & the other one paid by another company. Wouldn't doubt it politics are so crooked.
Introducing the new DrillStop!
Congress is barely able to pass a budget. They have delegated rule-msking authority to agencies. Congress also has the ability to override any regulation they object to. They could also change the scope of what the regulation making agency can do. Overall, the CPSC has done a great job of reducing injuries and deaths. If we had to wait for Congress to pass laws to do things like making lawmowers less likely to cut off parts of feet, it wouldn't happen. Lawnmowers stop when you let go of the handle because of CPSC rules.
Obviously, tool makers have a vested interest in maximizing their profit, and they are fighting this rule because they know they won't sell as many table saws if the price goes up. Lawsuits over injuries suffered that could have been prevented if a saw had SawStop technologies are apparently not enough to convince them to incorporate the technology.
What the CPSC is not looking at is the number of people who won't be able to buy a table saw because of the higher price. Unfortunately, these are likely to be the same people who can't afford health insurance to address their injuries if they had a table saw accident. I don't have any good approaches to address this.
@@johnhaller5851 You know who else has a vested interest in keeping table saw prices down? Consumers. If people want to spend the extra money on a saw with AIM tech, they can already do that today. Nobody is stopping them.
@@brettski74 I also like to keep the cost of health insurance low. If there was a $100 per year surcharge for using a table saw without AIM technology, would that influence consumer decisions? I'm not sure if that's the right number, or if the majority of injuries caused by "professional" saws not covered by the CPSC regulations was part of the calculations for cost effectiveness of this regulation, but not buying saws with AIM technology creates externalities of paying for the injuries which could be prevented. Most people without AIM technology will never have an accident with a table saw, but some will, and those accidents will be quite expensive to society between medical care and loss of work opportunities, and possible disability or welfare payments. I don't pretend to have the right answer, but people are generally poor at analyzing risk-reward ratios. We, as a society also don't typically require people to bear the cost of that risk. This results in government actions to reduce risk, as government ends up dealing with some of the results of bad results from making risky decisions. There are other possibilities, like licensing used for professionals, but that's also costly.
The technology is available to the consumer. The consumer choose not to purchase it and knew the risks. It shouldn't be up to other manufacturers to be responsible for people's injuries
I'll just keep my 40 year old craftsman 113. Still works, still have all my fingers.
Ditto
Same
Here. Here.. ive got an old craftsman "100"..ive had 2 kickbacks in 20 years..and guess who was at fault...
Exactly, me too.
Same here. And my riving knife and guard are removed too!
What an awesome video. I could research this stuff myself, but I'm so glad you do it for me.
The one commissioner dude is a joke. It's their patent. They have every right to do with they are doing. They have NO obligation to discuss licensing. All this whole thing about is a money grab.
I would like to give you a massive shout out for talking about this and keeping us up to date.
Please continue to do these videos!
Bless you
Government should leave us alone. Tired of government overreach. Government motto, tax everything.
At the core of this debate is the question of whether the Governments responsibility is to save us from risk (our choice ourselves)....the majority of buyers of table saws have opted not to pay for Sawstop like technologies choosing to accept risk because of cheaper saws without the safety feature..I wonder what other safety features standards will be forced on us...
This will be pretty rough on Shopsmith
I agree that Shopsmith may have a rough time making the blade drop below the table, but may have a leg up because or the DVR motor being able to stop quickly. This is just my opinion, not trying disput your statement.
So just like everything else...
Table saws being regulated by people who do not know gow to use a table saw and are thus afraid of them
..
This is a great video, thank you for putting in the work to not only pass the information but also the explanations you gave broke it down to make it more understandable. I applaud Saw Stop for offering to give their tech for free. I would have liked to hear what she had to say instead of getting cut off repeatedly. I think that was uncalled for.
I will repeat my views that I commented on the last video on this subject.
I see both sides of this issue. It’s a tough one. As a consumer that’s trying to start up a small business it would cause more expense for someone who doesn’t have a table saw yet or who wants to upgrade. On most things, I always prefer less government over government overreach. On the other hand, I have a safety background including a degree in safety. We have taken great strides since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when there were no regulations concerning safety. This allowed companies to hire children working in dangerous industries. This continued until the Shirt Waist fire in 1911. We slowly gained regulations until the creation of OSHA in 1969. OSHA has made a lot of progress on the safety of workplaces. Nobody likes them coming around, but they play a positive role for the most part. I know this is about product safety, but they overlap here.
I told you the last video that you made that this was going to happen. And you said you like and agree with the government mandating this rule. This is a disaster , even if Saw Stop gives everyone the free technology it will increase prices and increase problems. ''Nannys'' don't understand what is next i. They are already talking about if your are not a professional you will not be able to use a table saw . ,and they are looking into using insurance companies to increase insurance so high for woodworkers that it will eliminate home shops. Poeple who thought this was good has open the Flood Gates .
This is so un AMERICAN, I hope all the big companies get together and take the government to court. Big Brother is coming for many more of your favorite hobbies and sports.
The market does not want them or does not want to pay that much or can't afford those saws . Don't be a bootlicker and stand on the side of capitalism and freedom.
I’ll never be in the market for a new table saw as my 113 is perfectly suitable for another 50 years. If I were in the market, it damn sure wouldn’t be a SawStop. Instead, I’d buy a vintage machine.
Love your videos. I don’t comment much on anything but. 731 thank you for your content ALL your content. One day I looked up purple hear projects. I got 731 and the Twin Towers coin mallet. Just WoW.
This is what happens when un-elected officials are allowed to essentially make law without accountability.
That Trumka guy is a dishonest a -hole.
Using pictures of people to try and guilt her into getting g a specific reply.
The overwhelming majority of table saw injuries are user error when safety techniques are not being used.
Unless the saw itself does not function correctly not one single manufacturer is responsible for any injuries.
that commissioner stinks of bias corruption
Gun owners: first time here?
@@bouncer812 lol Fk the ATF
@@bouncer812 Nailed it!
Thanks for the comprehensive video on the politics behind this. I’m an English guy living in the Canary Islands. So I’m not sure if this is going to be a world wide change with the rules? Or just in America. I’m a builder for 40 years & I’ve been woodworking with a good quality 3 horse power table saw for over 25 years. On day one I cut a nice groove in my thumb with a brand new blade and table saw that I paid 3k for back then ( English £s) never took it for granted since! Had a few kick backs even when fully concentrating ! One went through a plywood door! Luckily that one didn’t hit me! Dangerous tools sometimes equal danger.! There is no way around it. Saw Stop tech looks great but I’m not sure it’s going to save everyone! Other tech out there as well, looks fantastic with cameras that monitor where your hand are! But if you make a mistake it’s always going to cost you something! Lose clothes, long hair, a moment of not paying attention, and unfortunately, when you get older and have done this thing several thousand times. That’s when it will get you! Just my opinion. But thanks for the great Video!
Saw Stop has caught SOOOOOO MUCH GREEF for suing the crap outta any other table manufacturer that thought of implementing their own AIM technologies or in the development of those technologies.
This Saw Stop Lawyer is really choosing his truth very carefully.
The Bosch system was different and arguably better, and still they got sued and lost on an injunction. Here we are, the consumers, with zero choice and only one participant. This is monopoly. But sure... Apple is the bad guy in cell phones, AT&T is (well, was) the bad guy in land copper and POTS. The government's Eye of Sauron for monopolies is very... ahem... selective (read as: $$$).
But they weren't "implementing their OWN AIM technologies", they were stealing SawStops copyrighted technology too closely despite there being other methods to implement AIM
For all these that had injuries, did they have the safety components installed when working? What is to say you cannot bypass the technology after the first time it is used? Same as not using the safety already available.
Trust the government…….. To not care about the American people. Leave us alone lol
Thanks for doing the legwork and providing a great presentation.
Early in my career, in a different industry, I occasionally interacted with Federal regulators. They have no incentive to refrain from increasing regulation or even to consider fairly arguments against increased regulation.
Trumka is a perfect example of the arrogant, power-mad bureaucrat accountable to no one but still not satisfied with his authority so resorting to half-truths, shaming, and innuendo. Look no further for the argument on why the power of the Federal government must be curtailed.
Not only do they have no incentive to refrain from enacting excessive regulations - they have every incentive to, in fact, implement them. The more they regulate, the more power they wield and can threaten to wield. They are blackmailers and extortionists.
I read somewhere once, that the inventory of sawstop offered to license tool manufacturers. They refused so he started sawstop. With the recent information online about this current event, I cannot find this information again. I recently purchased the CPS because I like my fingers. They are worth more than the extra $900 Canadian I just spent.
even if they give the patent away, the rule will raise all saw prices into the same range of sawstop, making the sawstop no longer the high price saw.
It will also send a ton of companies into the arms of SawStop, because I can guarantee that there’s more to the tech than just that one patent. As the dude says around the 11:30 mark, there’s 20ish years of know-how that SawStop has built up that other companies don’t. They know that, if the ruling goes through, they’re poised to make A TON of money in licensing fees and all, just due to the sheer amount of information and data they have on the topic.
It will certainly raise prices - but not nearly as much as it would have if Sawstop was licensing the technology. Now it's just the retooling and additional hardware costs - the IP will be free.
@@nathan1sixteenthat's the gotcha he was ignoring, that 840 patent is only part of system which means to implement it you either hope they'll license the others needed or risk infringing on them and being sued.
SS is essentially trying to put others out of the market using government regulations and that's likely why they are again filing for patent extensions. They want total market share of table saws specially smaller ones since theirs isn't selling near like they hoped.
@@nathan1sixteen What know how? The current sensor is literally used in touch lamps for 50 years. Its not hard to figure out how to drop the blade below the table, whether you use gas like Bosch, springs like Sawstop or a motor like Felder.
@@totallynottrademarked5279 I can GUARANTEE you that implementation is a bit more complicated than you make it when it comes to a commercially available product. Making a 1-off work and making a commercially available product are 2 VERY different things, and having someone with experience producing them is invaluable in the process.
The government should not have there nose in our business, period.
I lost the top of my thumb to a table saw, but I still believe that the consumers should have the final destination as to whether the table saw they buy does or does not have the technology. I do not need someone deciding for me what risks I take in life. Thanks for keeping us informed
Somebody with common sense! What a rare thing nowadays
I really appreciate your series on this. I haven't seen it anywhere else in my feed, and I think it is fantastic that you're taking the time to go through and interpret what the conversation going on is. (Of course, I'm in Canada, so I'm not sure how this would affect us... perhaps our sales of non-AIM saws would skyrocket to cross border shoppers).
Nevertheless, great work... thanks!
As a french Canadian, trust me, taxes have never fixed anything
Nothing? So how do you run your country?
@@donlee7545 it runs like sh*t. Taxes on everything left and right, we got garbage roads, schools and hospitals - plenty of bureaucrats taking their cuts though, without achieving anything useful in return.
As a french Canadian too, I can agree with this. Governments in general only get in the way of things and make everything worse.
Gross generalization. You are not wrong about many things, but do you have any suggestions?
@@marcorock101
Wouldn't the money be better spent on putting out quality safety education than shaking the whole saw market?
This is insane, if industrial cabinet saws are not in the CPSC purview, then 4,000 people out of 50,000 are getting hurt, what happened to personal responsibility? 4000 people is .00000121% (+/- one 0) of the whole USA. This is insanity.
I get your point, but if you're going to do the percentage shouldn't it be the former - 4,000 / 50,000 is 8%. Which, that can't even be right, can it? Seems high. What kind of injury breakdown, I wonder.
@@marvinmartian8746 In the video he explains that 92% of the 50,000 were industrial accidents. The CSPC only has purview over NON-industrial products which leaves the 8%.
You can't really compare it to the population of the US. It would make sense to compare it to the population that uses that type of saw.
Estimates show ~7.1 million benchtop saws. So 4000/7.1m = 0.056% of table saw users are injured yearly.
Still miniscule.
@@SpartanORGN I would not call that miniscule. Using your own numbers, over a 20-year woodworking career, your odds of a tablesaw accident are about 1/100 (0.056x20). Many of these injuries are career-ending.
@@brucejohnson1264 miniscule in statistical significance.
The key factor in people being unable to have access to AIM technology is cost. Anyone can buy a Sawstop saw if they can afford it. But if this rule gets put in place, it doesn't make AIM technology more affordable to open that barrier, it instead raises the cost of entry to every saw to similar prices of current saws with it available.
So what you will see is people that want or need to have a table saw will seek more dangerous methods because they can't afford one with AIM.
There are many options that could reduce injuries other than AIM technology. Tools like Jessem's stock guides are an example, would keep people's hands away from the blade but still hold the workpiece against the fence.
Screw the government and saw stop. I've sawed lots of wood over the last 35 years with table saws with the riving knife and guard removed and I have all my fingers. I've got my forever table saw and I'm not paying any frigging tax to own it.
It is an anti American idea to suggest that companies have an obligation to devote their resources to anything they do not wish to. In a free market the consumer is able to make their own choices
I agree, no seat belts, no airbags!
I too think it is anti-American to suggest any company should devote resources to not dump their waste into rivers and drinking water sources. It's obvious people will make the right choice of paying multiple time the price of a good because they know the company is not polluting.
See how fast fashion is pretty much only made in the US by clean factories and very much not in Asian and South-Asian countries where they have no waste management.
Isn't the free and unbiased market a great thing ?
🇸🇪In Sweden (falsely characterised as "socialist") ... in 1960s Volvo gave the World the car seat belt without protecting its Research and Development to save lives... "you are welcome" 🇸🇪
Fun facts: During Covid Absolute vodka started producing medical grade alcohol (for free) and SAS (airline) trained all grounded staff as 'medical orderlies' (helpers)... all without government involvement. ... it is called "Corporate Social Responsibility" which is highly "un-American" 😏
The entire purpose of the government is to make corporations pay the incidental costs their business incurs. So we fine major polluters because treating cancer is very expensive. Free market =/= uncontrolled market.
Why doesn't the cpsc mandate training for a tablesaw?.. from my understanding the injuries are operator error.. not machine malfunction..and if most of the injuries are from industry.. where is the safety protocols??..why do we need the government to protect us?? From ourselves..!!
Full disclosure: I have owned stock in dozens of companies across multiple industries. I can tell you, without reservation, that the companies and their Power Tool lobbying association care about the price of their stock -- and not about your hands next to that spinning blade. The CPSC may well have flawed logic or data, but at least their focus is the safety of your hands next to a spinning blade.
That's the problem. The government is not here to determine my safety
The government could care less about your safety. They only care about money and power, and this rule is exactly that (hence the “safety tax”).
@bw162 are you any safer now then you were in the 90s? Arguably no your not, I can't even take a Swiss army knife on a plane. At that point my safety is solely in the hands of the airline and I don't even have a butter knife. My safety is my responsibility and not for someone else to determine
This tracks with why every table saw manufacturer is having sales on their current existing inventory. Deals on deals available with promos too. In reality, they are either trying to offload what will be outdated inventory after the mandate to add a safety feature similar to sawstops patented safety feature.... or they realize the entire industry is about to overhaul and want to reduce their exposed liabilities before the coming changes where they will need to decide how to move forward.
I think it's because they are trying to sell as many as they can during this hype period.
Can we all just acknowledge that SawStop has given NOTHING to the public at this point. NOTHING. PERIOD. They have “made a promise”, and we all know how good companies are at upholding promises… The mere fact they are unwilling to budge on ANYTHING until after the fact is the main concern, because it shows that they know something that the rest of us don’t, and if other companies were allowed to license and produce/sell their own products, that they will learn some of those things. SawStop, in my opinion, has a golden opportunity right now to license out their IP to other companies and allow them to gather real-world data on how much a new rule like this would effect manufacturing and pricing. The fact that they’re refusing to do anything until AFTER the government forces other companies to include this tech is just more proof that they aren’t acting in good faith, and Feldman is calling them out for it (whereas the other board members have fallen for the “surprise” narrative that SawStop was looking for).
Bingo!!!!
Great content thanks for taking the time and care to produce it. UK: our one and only option to get saw stop tech is in a festool saw which I can see from a known discount supplier today at about £1500 (about $1900 US). Also looking online at Sawstop their saws appear to start at $900 US (about £700) and that's mrp rather than any discounted price. For comparison mrp for the Festool is about £2000 (about $2500 US). £700 isn't a crazy price for a portable table saw in the UK, although it's probably at the highrer end. A small DeWalt which is a popular choice here might cost around £500. So in the UK it costs about 2.7x more to access the same safety feature. I understand the commercial considerations for Saw Stop, but the horrific, life changing injuries that a table saw is capable of inflicting means that this situation leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think contextually there are moral considerations, even obligations in this situation. I'm afraid that Sawstop is on the front line of this. Wouldn't it be nice if SawStop would just find a way. I feel this is a pressing issue and it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man (and their corporations) to sort it out, and wouldn't it be nice if they found away to do so rather than being forced to. This can be done with commercial gain: Bosch sell shock absorbers to car manfufacturers and electric motors to bike manufacturers. BMW outsource their engine manufacturing. I'm sure the tool manufacturers are well versed in buying in parts from suppliers. A scenereo might be that sawstop sold fewer saws but had their tech in every single table saw. It's not for me to agree commercial terms but it is for me to ask sawstop why they aren't doing what they can to prevent amputations in the workshop.
In answer to table saw injuries and would you prefer others to suffer these types of injuries: Was saw stop technology available at the time of these injuries and they chose not to buy this technology? How am I in any way responsible for any table saw injuries? People will still choose not to use the technology even if it was mandatory.
They have spent 20 years trying to get the companies to make them safer voluntarily only to be largely ignored. I am a carpenter, and I think the companies have allowed this issue to fester, the large price jump is in large part their fault for not working on this for twenty years with the writing being on the wall.
Government overreach. EPA, ATF, (pick your 3-letter gov't sponsored org, or 4 letter as in the CPSC.) all the same.
All this government intrusion, messes up the whole idea of capitalism.
If its a big issue customers, them them (us) rule with our pocketbook.
This tax will not put anyone's fingers back on, nor will it guarantee it will ever happen again in this way or other way.
If a consumer wants to have a saw with the tech, they should be able to freely decide for themself to purchase it, or not.
CPSC will be sued.
Saw Stop was founded on the idea of capitalism and patents are an important part
pretty sure it was negligence on the person using the saw and not the fault of the saw.