• Justice@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        6 months ago

        If this is true, and I’ll just take your word for the moment, then simple solution is simultaneously strip the patent and all variants of it going forward

        • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          6 months ago

          That does seem to be what’s being proposed in the original post. The last line isn’t “stop this indefinitely” it’s “stop this until the patents are made public”

          • GalaxyBrain [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            Okay, that’s reasonable IF you’re implementing a solution at the same time. Make it a legally standard part and have the manufacturers pay the patent holder for all I care until then. The stopgap measure shouldn’t be ‘keep letting people lose fingers until we settle this’.

            • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              6 months ago

              Oh yeah, the caveat is that if you’re gonna run this play you have to actually work to get that law passed. You can’t just use the fact that a safety regulation would create a monopoly to not do anything

              • GalaxyBrain [they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                6 months ago

                It wouldn’t even bother me if they just like, made them cut a government contract style deal where they’d make and develop it under subsidy until they get a law passed. That’s some wonk shit, but I’m trying to consider a doable thing under lib world to keep fingers on hands until it’s settled. Cause in the end, does anyone operating these machines give a flying fuck who’s getting the money for what’s keeping their hands attached to.their arms more than that it’s fucking there in the first place? Instal tthe damn sensors and then argue about it.

        • ZWQbpkzl [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          And strip an innovator of their intellectual property? Earnestly this is probably legally/politically impossible for even the federal government to do.

          • Justice@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            I mean politically Biden is doing an extremely unpopular war/genocide. Stripping patents from shitty companies is far more popular. And yeah the government can essentially do anything it wants on that front. SCOTUS will sometimes strike things down as being unconstitutional, but if you go off that logic then basically every law can be debate-broed into being unconstitutional. Which is one of many problems with SCOTUS allocating itself more power… different discussion though. But yes congress can absolutely strip a patent with minimal effort.

  • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    6 months ago

    Finger safety devices are fucking awesome. The one I was working with a few years ago, if the blade encounters something conductive like your finger, an electro-magnet throws a block of aluminum in to the saw blade and stops it. Near instantly. Finger saved. It costs, idk, 100$ to reset, but that’s a damn sight less than losing a finger. Like you might be nicked but you’re probably not even going to need a bandaid. Just so damn cool, and one of the biggest dangers in a wood shop becomes vastly, vastly safer to work with.

    • Evilsandwichman [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      6 months ago

      I don’t know; I’ve always felt this kind of tech, while it has its upsides, tends to come with some severe downsides.

      How are you ever going to justify the use of a table saw in a horror movie ever again?

      • SSJ2Marx@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        If this isn’t already a bit in a Scream-like horror comedy it should be. Or maybe the killer comes at someone with a chainsaw, but they’re wearing one of those pairs of anti-chainsaw pants.

      • Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        Just have a character mention in the first act they can’t do a project because they’re having issues with the table saw.

        It’s how the strangers justified killing somebody by putting their head in an open microwave and turning it on, which would require multiple safety devices to fail.

      • GalaxyBrain [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        The victim seems totally calm until.they notice it’s a tablesaw from prior to the regulatory date. Cause you fucking know you won’t have to update your saws as an employer let alone a private owner. Which will probably also be a thing that if it becomes necessary then it will only apply to new saws and anyone thst already had an industrial saw, which is generally built to last or be serviced like a ship.of theseus where as far as regulations are concerned it’s the same saw they bought in the 70s, you won’t see it unless some saws get sabbed

      • Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        You get the funny scene of killer dragging someone into the blade, the blade stopping, there’s a comedic beat, then they hit them with an axe or something.

    • Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yea I was going to say I’m positive she doesn’t actually care about it and it’s just her excuse to oppose it but it is bullshit to require something that’s protected intellectual property. That’s just government establishing a monopoly.

  • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    6 months ago

    raise costs by hundreds of dollars

    maybe I’m misunderstanding but this person is introducing legislation to save producers money on the scale of hundreds of dollars?

    • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      6 months ago

      I would support that unironically. Patents should be illegal anyway they exist solely to stifle innovation, patents for safety or health things should be double illegal.

      So make the patent public, and then make it the law that everyone has to do it.

          • spectre [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Abolishing all patent law, I think there’s a justification for it, but it really needs to justify itself into existence instead of being the default position. It’s also possible that it’s unjustifiable, but that discussion is 50-200 years away from happening anyway

    • Evilsandwichman [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      Hey now, as a consumer I have the right to choose that the people who made my product have their fingers sliced off; I’ll never meet them, I’ll never personally see it happen, but it’s important to me to know it happened.

  • radiofreeval [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    6 months ago

    I mean it would be great if sawstop didn’t have a monopoly but most people I know refuse to work on anything that isn’t a sawstop.

  • Evilsandwichman [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    6 months ago

    Actually this is kinda based…

    Consumers choice should be protected; personally I won’t buy any wooden stuff unless I know the work to make it severed fingers.

    I also support protection for child labor rights; I won’t be happy unless I know my wooden stuff was anointed with the blood of the innocent.

  • ZWQbpkzl [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    6 months ago

    until the patents for this tech are made public

    That’d be OK with me if you forced the patents to be public sooner. I’d say just eminent domain the patent and pay the owners a fuckton for making digitsaving tech real but thats probably illegal in two dozen different ways.