← Back to context

Comment by x0x0

7 months ago

Right in the article, it says most patents are now expired and for the final key patent that expires in 2033, the owner -- SawStop's corp parent -- has offered to donate it to the public if this rule passes.

edit: if you believe different, please share. But per this article, patents do not seem to be a reason to avoid this tech. And the SawStop v1 was introduced in 2004, so it stands to reason we can now produce patent-free equivalent tech to the 2004 machine.

Here is a link to Gass' patent portfolio:

https://patents.justia.com/inventor/stephen-f-gass

Notice that the vast majority of his patents have to do with various aspects of "active injury mitigation technology", primarily related to saws, and that the most recent one was filed in August 2021. The only patent being offered up is the original--- Patent 9,724,840--- which basically only releases a very specific, early implementation of the safety system that has since undergone 20 years of additional patent activity.

  • Thanks for the link. Does any of this block competitors from selling a 2004-equivalent table saw with brake unencumbered by patents? I don't believe it can.

    • Yes it can.

      Sawstop, like a lot of other companies, abuse the patent process by filing multiple continuations with the exact same specification. They then let the patent office take its time granting some of them, and claim a 'patent term extension' due to the patent office delays.

      So if they filed in 2001, but one of their patents wasn't granted for over 14 years due to the patent office taking 10 years in total to respond to the many arguments over patentability, it may expire in 2031. This seems absurd, but is totally legal. Being run by a patent attorney means they (a) are ninja level at drawing these arguments out and constantly filing appeals to continue examination after a denial by a patent examiner and (b) it doesn't cost them much to do so.

      I'm simplifying and my numbers aren't exact, but this abuse is the problem.

      1 reply →