Notice that the vast majority of his patents have to do with various aspects of "active injury mitigation technology", primarily related to saws, and that the most recent one was filed in August 2021. The only patent being offered up is the original--- Patent 9,724,840--- which basically only releases a very specific, early implementation of the safety system that has since undergone 20 years of additional patent activity.
Thanks for the link. Does any of this block competitors from selling a 2004-equivalent table saw with brake unencumbered by patents? I don't believe it can.
Sawstop, like a lot of other companies, abuse the patent process by filing multiple continuations with the exact same specification. They then let the patent office take its time granting some of them, and claim a 'patent term extension' due to the patent office delays.
So if they filed in 2001, but one of their patents wasn't granted for over 14 years due to the patent office taking 10 years in total to respond to the many arguments over patentability, it may expire in 2031. This seems absurd, but is totally legal. Being run by a patent attorney means they (a) are ninja level at drawing these arguments out and constantly filing appeals to continue examination after a denial by a patent examiner and (b) it doesn't cost them much to do so.
I'm simplifying and my numbers aren't exact, but this abuse is the problem.
>Gass also has a PhD in physics and was the person who designed and engineered the product.
So what? That doesn't make him NOT an attorney. There's nothing that says a PhD and product inventor can't ALSO be a engaged in a scheme to have their own patent encumbered invention mandated by law.
Airbus is a threat, but they have a huge obstacle Boeing doesn't: they don't build planes in the US except for the A319-320-321. Any defense contract won with an Airbus airframe as its basis (e.g. NG's KC-X submission based on the Airbus A330 MRTT) also includes the expense and possible difficulty building a factory in the US to manufacture them. Boeing may have a bad reputation for screwing up manufacturing, but that's a known quantity vs. the giant question mark that is the quality of a theoretical Airbus factory--- run by a US defense contractor rather than Airbus--- that hasn't been built.
That far north is definitely outside the central valley. Once you travel north out of Redding, you're climbing up into the mountains, and it's 60 miles of that before you get to Shasta. Lassen is better candidate, since it actually erupted recently (1921) and is only ~40 miles east of Redding... but it's also part of the Cascade range like Shasta, which sn't really IN the valley.
SpaceX will never have an IPO because being publicly traded means ceding a certain degree of control. The founders' goal is to make life multiplanetary, and the typical goal of rando shareholders is to pump up the stock price. They don't want to have to deal with the latter.
They may at some point spin off Starlink and IPO that, but not until it's fully deployed and not heavily dependent on frequent, super cheap, low bureaucratic friction launch services from SpaceX.
They already have shareholders? And as you point out, if the founder really wanted to, he could have self-funded most of SpaceX (instead of buying X for example).
He's a public company CEO already - he has no qualms about taking SpaceX public.
Firearm and ammunition manufacturers are already not culpable for people getting shot. Your argument would be better made comparing Comma 3X hardware + OpenPilot software to something that unintentionally causes injury despite being used as intended.
Then again, if you used that line of reasoning you'd have to show a comparable example of OpenPilot unintentionally causing injury, rather than just waving your hands and saying "it COULD happen, because unregulated!"
Like any public utility, there's a huge cost to get the infrastructure in place because there is... well... a CITY in the way. The immense capital outlay is generally worth it for the first to enter the market in a given area, because they stand to collect 100% of the demand for the service they offer. In contrast, a second competing entity incurs the same capital outlay, but can only count on as much of it's competitors business as it can wrest away. Unless their offering is of substantially better value, the most they can realistically hope for is 50%. In cases like local rail service, the initial outlay is so immense that there's little chance that anyone could make a compelling business case for it.
Problem is, both sides of the ideological spectrum have spent 100+ years studiously ignoring the actual basis for rights in the US--- Natural Rights theory--- in favor of more "malleable" approaches that can be twisted to their desired ends. Both the crazy strict textualists, who think that the constitution as-written is the end-all be-all of human rights, and at the opposite end of the spectrum, the crazy extreme "living document" theorists with their "anything goes" approach; neither of them want to acknowledge that there's an underlying philosophical framework that potentially flips the table on their shenanigans.
$10/gal gasoline is not the answer, because it's a regressive tax that just prices the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder out of the transportation they need to get to work. It also adversely affects businesses that can't use public transit, like technical service people with tools and materials, and delivery drivers. The actual answer is to build a comprehensive mass transit system that makes driving unnecessary for most people. Trying to force people to use an inadequate public transit system by making the alternative unaffordable is just a shitty thing to do to people.
High gas prices are explicitly why I take transit and avoid driving. I have a car, but it works out to $10 CAD every day to drive to work - so I make the effort to get up a little earlier and take the train when I can.
"It's regressive and has an undue effect on the poor" and "It's moderately effective" are not mutually exclusive. That was a major reason public transit bounced back so fast in the Lower Mainland of BC, Canada - because driving is decidedly not cheap. Moreover, high gas prices are something I endorse, loudly and often, because it subsidises transit, and how much more expensive it makes the biggest (most dangerous to pedestrians) vehicles.
Still need to drive, and don't want to pay an arm and a leg? Skip the Silverado, get a hatchback or moderately-sized SUV or van. Need to haul your boat (or 40-foot camper instead of a tent)? Sounds like an expensive hobby - and anyone who's owned a boat can attest to that.
Can't you put fuel as expense when you have a small business? Then only individuals would pay that tax, not businesses.
> The actual answer is to build a comprehensive mass transit system that makes driving unnecessary for most people
Car-centric design makes building such a system hard in many ways. You have to tackle both side of the equation at once - encourage public transport and discourage cars. Otherways you build it and nobody uses it.
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/stephen-f-gass
Notice that the vast majority of his patents have to do with various aspects of "active injury mitigation technology", primarily related to saws, and that the most recent one was filed in August 2021. The only patent being offered up is the original--- Patent 9,724,840--- which basically only releases a very specific, early implementation of the safety system that has since undergone 20 years of additional patent activity.