In the article “SawStop Sues Bosch over new ReaXX Table Saw and its Flesh-Detecting Blade-Braking Technology,” the author takes a strong stance on the fact that the owner and create\or of “SawStop,” Stephen Grass, is actively bullying table saw manufactures by throwing a lawsuit at anything that resembles his product and see if it sticks, which so far has not been working.
“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.”
This factual claim adds context to the article and the authors feeling of Grass attempting to corner the table saw market with little reinforcement. It is a factual claim because there would clearly be evidence of a lawsuit by Grass towards other manufactures. The article goes on to discuss the fact that there were at least 22 other lawsuits regarding Grass’s technology and other table saw companies. The purpose of this claim is an attempted plea to the readers and trying to get them to understand where the author comes from when he addressed Grass as a bully. This is the beginning of where Grass feels entitled to sue other manufactures for infringement of her patent.
In the writing piece, “Table Saw Amputation Lawyer,” the article discusses how the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) prolonged a deadline regarding regulated safety features in all table saws currently in production. The author writes:
“Since 2000, a safety device called the “SawStop” has existed that could prevent all table saw amputations, but manufacturers have refused to voluntarily place the safety devices on their products, citing an unreasonable increase in price (about $100 per table saw).”
This is a factual claim due to the fact that it is directly stating this piece of technology could save peoples fingers, hands and arms. This indirectly implies that if not on the job when the injury occurs, could significantly impact the victim’s wallet, causing stress on the family. The quote also speaks to the cost of the addition of the technology to the saws, implying companies will in fact lose money due to the higher prices of the saws. The companies do not necessarily care if the user gets hurt, as long as they are not liable. Manufactures only care about moving their product to the consumer.
In an article titled, “SawStop Vs Bosch Reaxx Lawsuit: It’s Not Over Yet – UPDATED,” particularly focuses on the legal battle between the creator and owner of the patent of the SawStop and the company Bosch who attempted to better the technology. They claim that they advanced the technology by allowing the saw stop to be utilized twice, instead of once, making it much more cost effective. After a legal battle resulting in favor of Stephen Grass’s SawStop, Bosch released a statement overall defending their product.
“Bosch has vigorously defended, and will continue to defend, its ability to make REAXX table saws available in the United States. In addition, Bosch will continue to pursue its own claim of patent infringement against the competitor filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.”
This quote from Bosch claims that they do not agree with the court’s decision that ruled against their product. They defend their position and defend their product after being told they copied off of another inventor’s product.
In “Power tools Industry Defends Table Saw Safety as Disabling Injuries Increase,” begins by going back to when the topic of discussion, the SawStop, was first introduced. The writing then quickly fast forward to present time and brings up personal recollections to when table saw operators did not have the technology equipped.
“Bravo!” a man named Frank Oslick emailed SawStop, explaining that he had lost two fingers and part of his thumb in a table saw accident when he was 14. “I have not lived a single day without regretting that accident,” he wrote. “If your device prevents even one person from going through what I have gone through it is a world class accomplishment.”
This is an emotional claim by bringing personal tragedies into the article and hoping to get the reader on emotion. The fact that the author uses a direct quote from a person whose life is forever effected Frank, the man who lost fingers as a result of not having the SawStop, states how much he regrets what happened and would give anything to go back and get the technology.
In“Feds might force table-saw makers to adopt radically safer technology,” this particular article goes on to talk about the legal battle between the originator of the SawStop and the newcomer to the table, Bosch’s Reaxx.
“Despite these differences, SawStop accused Bosch of infringing its patents. In January, the International Trade Commission sided with SawStop and blocked sale of the Bosch table saw.
This is a factual claim and goes onto explain on how the Trade Commission views the Reaxx. The Commission sees the Reaxx as a copycat device that does not advance the technology enough to deem is as new. This is an unbiased, opinion free statement that does not attempt to coerce the reader, yet states factual evidence and sheds more light into the years long court battle.