It’s criminal that they are able to lock up this tech behind patents. Not really a better illustration of the failings of capitalism. We have the solution to very severe, life altering common injuries… and it’s only available to wealthy people.
Sawstop tech should be standard in every single table saw sold in the world, and the brakes should be universal to all machines, so they can be manufactured/sold in bulk for cheap.
P.S. Saw stop should still be compensated for the breakthrough, should definitely be like winning the lottery when you invent something with such a universal need. But should not be able to be “locked behind a paywall” under any circumstances.
Their patents were allowed to be too broad. The creater for SawStop tried to get this tech mandated by law in the US, which is fine, but was also trying to make sure it would all have to be HIS patented tech.
I’d honestly be fine with OSHA or something mandating this in commercial applications, but it can’t be locked down to a single technology. Iirc Bosch made a better technology within a few years, but was forced to abandon it due to the SawStop patents, which is exactly what patents aren’t supposed to do.
Didn’t destroy the blade. Iirc, instead of using the blade’s momentum to retract, it used a couple of blanks. This let you replace the cartridge but keep the undamaged blade.
These solutions were only invented because of that. If everyone could just copy it, nobody would take the trouble of trying to come up with a solution. Also, not only wealthy people can afford this, pretty much everyone who can afford a table saw can also afford it. A pretty good illustration of the advantages of capitalism if you ask me…
Both of you are wrong: patents, patent law, and other forms of state-granted monopoly don’t really have much to do with capitalism at all. They are examples of state intervention in the economy, and if anything, they are more aligned with socialist policies typical of a mixed market. (Although in a ‘true’ socialist country, the monopoly would be granted to the state itself, so arguably patents are not socialist either). Perhaps calling them “statist” would be the most accurate description.
At any rate, I think there are certainly some positives to such legally enforced monopolies. However, there are many glaring problems that you don’t have to look far to find.
The biggest issue for me is the belief that someone is capable of ‘owning’ an idea/thought. I find this to be completely ridiculous and in direct contradiction with free speech, free expression, and actual physical property rights.
I also find the idea that nobody would innovate or create if they couldn’t apply for a state-sponsored monopoly completely laughable. You are using a platform right now that intentionally does not use any of these powers and actually goes as far as to give a free license to anybody to use, modify, copy, and redistribute their design, which they openly publish.
Of course, not all businesses would have to follow this model. In a world free of patents and IP restrictions, businesses and individuals would simply have to take their own information security more seriously, ensuring not to leak sensitive data and using legal tools like NDA’s to protect themselves when seeking funding or collaborating with other businesses, etc.
Once the product goes to market, it’s fair game for others to inspect, copy, and improve on the design. I think this is completely reasonable and the only ethical solution.
The idea that you could be granted a total monopoly, protected by state violence, on any idea, let alone a life-saving medication or an important safety feature, is just bizarre and abhorrent to me.
It’s criminal that they are able to lock up this tech behind patents. Not really a better illustration of the failings of capitalism. We have the solution to very severe, life altering common injuries… and it’s only available to wealthy people.
Sawstop tech should be standard in every single table saw sold in the world, and the brakes should be universal to all machines, so they can be manufactured/sold in bulk for cheap.
P.S. Saw stop should still be compensated for the breakthrough, should definitely be like winning the lottery when you invent something with such a universal need. But should not be able to be “locked behind a paywall” under any circumstances.
Their patents were allowed to be too broad. The creater for SawStop tried to get this tech mandated by law in the US, which is fine, but was also trying to make sure it would all have to be HIS patented tech.
I’d honestly be fine with OSHA or something mandating this in commercial applications, but it can’t be locked down to a single technology. Iirc Bosch made a better technology within a few years, but was forced to abandon it due to the SawStop patents, which is exactly what patents aren’t supposed to do.
Are you sure this isn’t what patents are supposed to do?
I know Bosch had A version, didn’t know it was perceived as better though - do you recall why it was better?
Didn’t destroy the blade. Iirc, instead of using the blade’s momentum to retract, it used a couple of blanks. This let you replace the cartridge but keep the undamaged blade.
These solutions were only invented because of that. If everyone could just copy it, nobody would take the trouble of trying to come up with a solution. Also, not only wealthy people can afford this, pretty much everyone who can afford a table saw can also afford it. A pretty good illustration of the advantages of capitalism if you ask me…
Both of you are wrong: patents, patent law, and other forms of state-granted monopoly don’t really have much to do with capitalism at all. They are examples of state intervention in the economy, and if anything, they are more aligned with socialist policies typical of a mixed market. (Although in a ‘true’ socialist country, the monopoly would be granted to the state itself, so arguably patents are not socialist either). Perhaps calling them “statist” would be the most accurate description.
At any rate, I think there are certainly some positives to such legally enforced monopolies. However, there are many glaring problems that you don’t have to look far to find.
The biggest issue for me is the belief that someone is capable of ‘owning’ an idea/thought. I find this to be completely ridiculous and in direct contradiction with free speech, free expression, and actual physical property rights.
I also find the idea that nobody would innovate or create if they couldn’t apply for a state-sponsored monopoly completely laughable. You are using a platform right now that intentionally does not use any of these powers and actually goes as far as to give a free license to anybody to use, modify, copy, and redistribute their design, which they openly publish.
Of course, not all businesses would have to follow this model. In a world free of patents and IP restrictions, businesses and individuals would simply have to take their own information security more seriously, ensuring not to leak sensitive data and using legal tools like NDA’s to protect themselves when seeking funding or collaborating with other businesses, etc.
Once the product goes to market, it’s fair game for others to inspect, copy, and improve on the design. I think this is completely reasonable and the only ethical solution.
The idea that you could be granted a total monopoly, protected by state violence, on any idea, let alone a life-saving medication or an important safety feature, is just bizarre and abhorrent to me.