Will there be further enforcement of the new mandatory safety standards for table saws in North America?
Since Roy published an article on table saw products last year, will there be a new revolution in the future? After the publication of this article, We have also discussed this issue with many colleagues in the industry. However, most manufacturers are currently taking a wait-and-see attitude.
In the United States, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is still pushing for the establishment of these safety standards starting this year. Many people also believe that since this bill directly concerns consumer safety and falls under the category of high-risk products, it is almost certain that it will move forward in the direction of formulation.
At the same time, the CPSC is actively collecting feedback and opinions from major table saw brands in the North American market.
However, there seems to be inconsistent opinions from some third parties. For example, comments from UL in the United States mentioned: "We strongly support this proposal and believe that the use of Active Injury Mitigation (AIM) technology will greatly reduce the destructive and lifelong injuries caused by table saws."
While the Power Tool Institute (PTI) of the United States suggested: "The CPSC should reject the mandatory rules for table saws, revoke the SNPR, and terminate the rule-making. Instead, each brand member of the committee should implement this requirement based on the voluntary standard UL 62841-3-1... Special requirements for movable table saws."
Representatives from Stanley Black & Decker (SBD) stated: "If the CPSC decides to include Active Injury Mitigation Technology (AIMT) as part of the mandatory standard, the committee must require the holder of the basic patent of the AIMT standard, whether it is SawStop Holding LLC, SawStop LLC, or SawStop's parent company TTS Tooltechnic Systems since 2017, to provide fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing commitments to other manufacturers."
However, it is evident that since 2002, SawStop has consistently refused license applications from major brands and has successfully sued Bosch. Therefore, it seems that providing fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing commitments to other manufacturers cannot be achieved.
SBD also stated: "Without fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory 'FRAND' commitments, SawStop and TTS will fully increase the license fee and benefit from it. This will also lead to a significant increase in the cost of competitive products, lose market competitiveness, and manufacturers who do not pay the fees will also be excluded from the market."
Similarly, Bosch also stated in its declaration: "Bosch's REAXX table saw requires long-term development by engineering experts because the development of mechanical buffer systems requires advanced computer simulations. Our mechanical engineering with a Ph.D. took 18 months to complete the simulation and optimize the design. Bosch Power Tools also relies on experts from other departments of Bosch, including engineers from the automotive department, to solve technical problems that the power tool department cannot solve."
"If the CPSC requires the use of AIM technology on table saws in the United States (which Bosch believes is unnecessary and unjustified), Bosch Power Tools estimates that redesigning and launching Bosch REAXX table saws in the United States will take up to 6 years. This requires time to meet the latest UL 62841-3-1 standards and develop updated AIM electronic and mechanical components. Bosch Power Tools is not sure whether it is possible to integrate this technology into smaller and cheaper portable table saws using existing technology. The redesign of these products will take as long as the REAXX table saw and may even be longer than the REAXX table saw."
In my view, legislating for user personal safety is an inevitable trend. I believe that such regulations should be formulated by the CPSC in the near future. Although SawStop is entitled to its rights from the perspective of patent law, we can also see that the United States has always maintained an extremely oppositional attitude towards industry monopolies. Therefore, in the future market, whether for users or brand merchants, they will certainly not want to see a situation where SawStop dominates the market alone. Whether there will be a third party to mediate and discuss a technology licensing agreement (perhaps transitional in nature) and obtain a solution acceptable to both parties, remains to be seen.
As for the specific direction of this solution, we will have to wait and see.
Post time: Mar-19-2024