I believe we've established that SawStop initially developed the technology and offered to license their IT to everyone, and had no response to it at the time.
We've also established that SawStop, having now jumped into the deep end of the pool and capitalized the manufacture of a full line of table saws, is very reluctant to now license their IT and risk their business investment.
These are two totally different business scenarios, and you can't infer how sincere their first offer was, based on their present behavior. They have a lot more investment to protect now, and a significant market share, so they don't need to be benevolent with their IT at this point. It's therefore unreasonable to expect them to now carry through on offers that were made in a totally different business scenario.
Sawstop is still trying to get the technology mandated by government regulation.
Sawstop claims to have offered to license their technology to other manufacturers instead of manufacturing the saws themselves, but had “no response”.
The reality, is that both Black &Decker, and Makita, seemed willing to license the technology initially, and put effort and resources into doing so, but then declined.
B&D seems to have done a lot of testing, but found the technology and inventor, both flawed, and too expensive to be worth licensing, especially with the inherently flawed design.
Why Makita dropped the idea is uncertain, but reports of the licensing fees were an initial 3%, until the technology became “Industry Standard” at which point the licensing fee would rise to 8%.
This leads me to believe the licensing fee rate for competing manufacturers would have been higher than 8%, since there would be no reason for Makita to bother being first, if they wound up paying more once Makita proved the technology.
There is a reason no major power tool manufacturer in the US market licensed the technology.
After rejection, the “inventor”, Gass, tried to force the technology, first thru legislation,
and then by serving as an “expert” witness, against the various power tool manufacturers in lawsuits concerning tablesaw injuries.
The first major victory in this regard, was a lawsuit concerning someone who was injured, while using a tablesaw;
-without blade guards, (something that is unsafe, and against general safety standards, and which is not prevented even with Sawstop made saws),
-without formal knowledge of power tool usage, or training (something the worker’s employer should have insured, whether by testing the employees knowledge, or by training)
-without any type of fence or miter guide, essentially freehand cutting on top of the tablesaw (something you are basically never supposed to do with a tablesaw)
-and possibly without a manual so the worker could reference safety guidelines and proper usage of a tablesaw.
Representatives for Sawstop,
have claimed in official hearings,
presumably under oath, that they did not actually prevent other manufacturers from entering the market with competing saws.
Actual manufacturers have basically responded that both the former owners of Sawstop (the “inventor”),
However, they did sue Bosch when Bosch tried to enter the market with the Reaxx saw, and after Bosch lost this lawsuit, the Reaxx saw was removed from the market, which sort of casts the Sawstop claims into doubt,
or implies that Sawstop might have made demands from Bosch which Bosch would not not agree to. (The comment from Grizzly from 2011 quoting one of Sawstop’s answers regarding licensing the Sawstop technology makes me wonder if Sawstop demanded similar cooperation from Bosch. “If Grizzly is serious about licensing the SawStop technology, then Grizzly should encourage the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to adopt new performance standards for table saws as soon as possible.”)
Further, Grizzly, and Stanley Black and Decker, have both come out and said that Sawstop, and later Sawstop/Festool’s claims about willingness to license the technology are and where bullsh!t.
Basically, Sawstop did not “play fair”.
They demanded way too much, for flawed technology, they would not personally back.
Then tried to force the free market to adopt the technology.
Then marketed the technology themselves, while denigrating all competing technology, and still trying to force all competing technology, new and old out of the marketplace.
Then continued trying to force the technology, while making claims about willingness to license the technology, while supposedly not actually being willing to license the technology.
