In the article, “SawStop Sues Bosch over new ReaXX Table Saw and its Flesh-Detection and Blade-Braking Tech” the author makes several claims that are factual, opinionated, and causal. In this one segment,
This isn’t the first time Stephen Gass and SawStop has sued Bosch and other power tool brands. In recent years, they sued 22 companies, including Bosch and other table saw manufacturers, for allegedly forming a secret boycott of SawStop’s technology. That lawsuit was ultimately dismissed.
It is clear that the author is not very fond of Stephen Gass, and SawStop. The sentence, “This isn’t the first time…” can be viewed as a factual claim since there is evidence proving that Stephen Gass and SawStop did indeed sue most power tool brands.
Here’s what I have read or otherwise found out about SawStop and Stephen Gass over the years:
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. Here’s a post from 3 years ago, after Stephen Colbert ran a report on Gass and SawStop:
Again this excerpt further proves the disapproval of the author towards SawStop and its founder. We can opinionate this as a causal claim, which says because power tool manufacturers would not license his technology he tried to lobby for federal regulations which would make his technology mandatory for all power tool makers to include. Even though that was obvious to deduce, we can also include that Gass was obsessed with his technology, and wanted it out there at all cost. We can also include that he did it for the money, and his technology would fetch him a hefty sum if manufacturers decided to include in their machines.
In the article “SawStop’s Stephen Gass – People Who Are Destroying America” we can conclude the author tries to remain neutral, but we can tell that he is still against Stephen Gass and SawStop. From the consumer standpoint, driven up prices will not be something to be looking forward to if Stephen’s technology should be implemented, although it makes it safer.
If Gass were lobbying that brands be forced to implement automatic saw-stopping safety measures of their own, okay that would seem reasonable. But no, he wants them to license his technology
This claim proves that Gass does not care about the consumer he just wants the money, if not he would have lobbied for safer designs for power tools.
From ” 10 amputations a day: the need for a safer table saw “many claims can be noticed throughout the passage.
The inventors of a saw that senses an electrical current in a finger, as opposed to a piece of wood, and stops before serious harm is done, named their company SawStop. They also took the commendable step of petitioning the Commission and asking that it adopt a mandatory safety standard – that was in 2003
This Is a proposal claim. It suggests that SawStop has the solution to the issue of people losing a limb to power tools. we can tell the author is in favor of regulating manufacturers, and the implementation of Gass’s invention.
Blah, blah blah. We’ve heard all that before – from the automakers, from lawnmower manufacturers and the swimming pool industry.
That is an opinion claim, and a comparison to how automakers, lawnmower manufacturers reacted when the government wanted to regulate them into making their technology safer.
“SawStop Finger Demonstration – move over hot dog!” a video demonstration of how Stephen Gass invention. This video proves how much trust he put in his invention. At first view, we get t urge that all power tool makers should and must implement this safety mechanism into their tools.
From “Table Saw Injury Lawyer,” provided on the website of “The Schmidt Firm, PLLC.,” a law firm. They imply that power tool makers should be held accountable for injuries sustained by their market.
Every year, thousands of people are severely injured after using table saws. For more than a decade, flesh-sensing safety technology has been available that could prevent almost all table saw injuries. Unfortunately, the manufacturers have refused to adopt it.
This claim is not only factual one but also a proposal claim. It’s a fact that the technology has been there for decades, and it is true power tool makers are against it. The proposal that if these manufacturers adopted the SawStop tech would reduce the number of injuries sustained without the implementation of Stephen Gass’s technology.
In 2012, California lawmakers tried to pass a law that would require all table saws sold after January 1, 2015 to have flesh-sensing safety technology. Proponents said the law would prevent thousands of injuries and billions in costs to society. The matter passed in the state assembly 52-2, but failed to pass in the California Senate.
This is a factual claim that suggests that an initiative was taken to make power tool safer for marketing, but failed. Also, we are told that power tool manufacturers are concerned about raising prices, which will, in turn, lower product sales if they adopt SawStop technology.