First, Gass tried to get power tool brands to license their technology, but they declined to. None of the other brands wanted to pay to implement SawStop’s flesh-detection and blade braking technology into their table saws. Then, since manufacturers wouldn’t license SawStop’s technology voluntarily, Gass lobbied for federal regulations that would force power tool manufacturers to do so.
- Companies didn’t want to pay Gass for his SawStop technology in their tools so tried to get regulations made that would force these companies to do so.
- This is a causal claim because it shows what Gass tried to do and the effects of it. Since he couldn’t get a license, the effect was that he wanted companies to pay him. Since this didn’t work, he wanted regulations to be made that would make these companies use his technologies. This did not work either.
- I feel conflicted about this. On one end, I feel as though Gass is trying to force these companies to pay him, even though his technology can be life changing. But he has a right to try to force them as he created something so unique.
Source 2: Bosch Tools SawStop Lawsuit
The potential for unintended consequences are immense – including manufacturers who may stop making more dangerous products or compromising in other areas (quality) in order to meet the price requirements of incorporating this particular technology. On top of all this, in terms of table saw safety, kickbacks are certainly more dangerous, and cause far more injuries each year, than cutting off fingers.
- Prices are so high now to make the new technology that companies are now making their tools in different and unsafe ways
- This is an evaluative claim because it questions whether companies should change how they make their tools in order to meet the price of what they need to pay for it, as if they pay more, the quality of their product decreases,
- I think this is dangerous because more people could get hurt if the tools they are using isn’t the safest.
Despite my public urging for the power tool industry to make progress voluntarily on preventing these injuries, no meaningful revisions to the voluntary standard were made.
- There were no changes made initially to make Gass’s technology safer.
- This is an evaluative claim the chairman wanted changes to be made, but nothing happened. This isn’t right because if there were conerns in the first place, solutions should have been made on what to do as soon as the safety of the technology was questioned.
- This angers me because the safety of people who would use this SawStop technology everyday should be the main conern of the Commission. To know that something could have been done to make the technology safer, earlier, makes me upset.
Source 4: Table Saw Injury Lawyer
Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than 4,000 amputations. Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.
- Steven Gass’s technology has caused many injuries every year.
- This is a quantitatve evaluative claim because the amount of injuries casued by Gass’s technology is more than other tools.
- I think this is very danergour but informative because it warns others with statsitics about the dangers of the Sawstop technology.
Where SawStop’s technology jammed the saw by running a piece of aluminum into it, wrecking the blade, Bosch’s cartridge system can save the saw blade. Whether Bosch’s design is too similar is a matter for the courts.
- Bosch’s technology is still in question over how similar it is to Steven Gass’s technology.
- This is an evaluative claim as there is still question over whether Bosch is copying SawStop. Even though it has its own advantages, it is still very similar to Gass’s technology.
- I think that the more important concern is the safety of the product. Instead of focusing on if Bosch is copying SawStop, maybe there should be more concern on if it is safer, and which one will prevent more injuries.