If you buy something through our links, ToolGuyd might earn an affiliate commission.
Harbor Freight recently wrote to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), addressing proposed rulemaking that could potentially mandate industry-wide table saw safety standards.
There have been comments in support of and opposed to the proposed rulemaking, which would essentially require all table saws to feature SawStop-like safety technology.
Harbor Freight makes excellent points in their comments, and I feel should be highlighted.
Following are excerpts from Harbor Freight’s comments, with paragraph breaks added for easier readability, and bold text replacing italicized emphasis.
The most important intellectual property and manufacturing consideration not addressed by the proposed rule is the technological “know-how” to implement the solutions as reflected in the patents and required by the proposed rule.
In order to implement a technology which requires the blade to be removed from the danger zone and/or stopped from rotating, a sensing module with a programmed circuit board is required.
Harbor Freight is aware of only one manufacturer making a sensing module, but even that manufacturer has informed Harbor Freight that it does not make or program the circuit board required to implement the technology to make the module function consistent with the proposed rule.
SawStop and PTI members consider the programming of the sensing module to be trade secret information and have not shared that information with any other table saw manufacturers and have not agreed to license that “knowhow” to potential table saw competitors based on Harbor Freight’s inquiries and from evidence presented by others.
None of the table saw manufacturers from whom Harbor Freight buys table saws know how to program the software to ensure the sensing module functions in accordance with the proposed rule.
Additionally, the Harbor Freight engineering team with expertise in table saws and similar power tools also lack the experience or knowledge to instruct the manufacturers on how to program the circuit board to ensure the proper functioning of the module.
Absent CPSC mandating a Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) license for both the unexpired patents and the know-how regarding implementation the patents, it will not be feasible for other table saw manufacturers to adopt the proposed standard prior to the effective date.
The fact that it took many years for both SawStop and the PTI (which was a collaborative effort between multiple table saw competitors with a substantial team of engineers) to develop a solution should be considered a baseline for the number of years that it will take other table saw vendors to develop and implement the patented technology.
Without a FRAND mandate for both the patented technology and the implementation know-how (including at least the software used to detect the presence of flesh and initiate a mitigation mechanism), the patent and trade secret owners will be able to easily seek unreasonable royalties in order to achieve a table saw monopoly.
At present, there are 4 types of active injury mitigation (AIM) systems – SawStop’s, PTI’s joint venture design- which has not been marketed but is described as being faster than SawStop’s, “mitigates injury to a greater degree when compared to the SawStop technology,” and has a lower replacement cost of firing – and two European systems that might not be possible to build into benchtop saws.
I can very much understand Harbor Freight’s position.
Corporate communications strongly suggest that SawStop has no interest in licensing their patents to other brands, and applicable patents are still years away from expiring. SawStop successfully sued Bosch after a competing Reaxx system with completely different brake system was introduced to market.
Why would Harbor Freight have developed their own AIM safety tech or implementation, when – barring a CPSC requirement – they would be prevented from bringing it to market until the mid-2030’s?
Harbor Freight summed things up:
The proposed rule would not only result in a monopoly for owners of applicable (and unexpired) patents as well as the trade secret technological know-how to implement those patents. If such a monopoly were permitted, it is the American consumer who would be harmed by the lack of availability of affordable and safe table saws and it could result in even more injuries from this product.
It could be that Harbor Freight believes it will be less expensive for them to license existing “know-how,” regarding table saw AIM tech, than to develop their own independent system that would compete with SawStop and PTI systems, at least short-term.
Harbor Freight’s argument is one that I hadn’t considered, and it might be one that the CPSC hadn’t considered either.
The Hercules table saw shown at the top of the post has a modular blade guard, which has become standard in the jobsite and stationary table saw industry. It seems a flesh detection and active injury mitigation safety systems are going to prove more difficult for them – and other brands – to implement, especially if forced to do so before SawStop’s patents expire.
Lastly, I would add that Harbor Freight likely isn’t alone in facing obstacles in developing independent AIM tech.
The question is, if the CPSC goes forward with their rulemaking, will they also mandate FRAND (fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory) licensing for both unexpired patents and know-how on how to implement them?
And if not, will that result in companies like Harbor Freight, who aren’t a part of PTI, to be excluded from the market entirely?
It’s worth repeating Harbor Freight’s summarizing argument:
Without a FRAND [fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory licensing] mandate for both the patented technology and the implementation know-how (including at least the software used to detect the presence of flesh and initiate a mitigation mechanism), the patent and trade secret owners will be able to easily seek unreasonable royalties in order to achieve a table saw monopoly.
And to repeat what Harbor Freight said about development time:
The fact that it took many years for both SawStop and the PTI (which was a collaborative effort between multiple table saw competitors with a substantial team of engineers) to develop a solution should be considered a baseline for the number of years that it will take other table saw vendors to develop and implement the patented technology.
In Bosch’s comments to the CPSC, separate from those of the PTI, they include a timeline showing that it took the company approximately 6 years to develop the Reaxx table saw. This follows nearly 6 years of PTI joint venture collaboration, with “knowledge transfer” taking place at the start of Reaxx development.
Bosch describes the Reaxx development, with this passage adding weight to Harbor Freight’s claims:
The REAXX table saw required work by engineering specialists as the development of the mechanical mitigation system required advanced computer simulation. A mechanical engineer with a PhD took 18 months to complete the simulation and optimize the design. Bosch Power Tools also relied on specialists from Bosch’s other divisions, including engineers from the automotive divisions to resolve technical challenges beyond the capabilities of the power tool division.
Bosch also comments about the development time it would take to relaunch the Reaxx table saw, with paragraph breaks are added for readability, and emphasis my own:
If the CPSC were to move forward with mandating AIM technology on table saws in the U.S., which Bosch does not believe is necessary or warranted, Bosch Power Tools calculates that it would take up to 6 years to redesign the original Bosch REAXX table saw and make it available in the United States market.
This time would be needed to meet the latest UL 62841-3-1 standard, and develop updated AIM electronics and mechanical components. Since the original Bosch REAXX design was completed, there have been changes including numerous environmental factors, such as more powerful cellular signals, which can affect operation of the AIM system. To ready the next generation of the REAXX table saw for commercial release, many of the components of the Bosch Power Tools AIM system will need to be redesigned or entirely redeveloped.
Bosch Power Tools is unsure if it is possible for the technology to be incorporated into smaller, less expensive portable table saws with the technology available today. The redesign of each of these products would require a similar, and potentially longer, schedule than the REAXX table saw.
It seems clear to me why Harbor Freight would like to see fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory licensing of non-expired patents and know-how to be tied into any safety standard that mandates AIM tech.
Should the CPSC rule in favor of a required safety standard, it seems that FRAND licensing of existing patents and know-how regarding AIM implementation seems almost essential, rather than a shortcut.
Harbor Freight’s Comments to the CPSC (PDF)
Bosch’s Comments to the CPSC (PDF)
See More Comments via Regulations.gov (Docket ID CPSC-2011-0074)
