As I see (and heard) it:
1. Sawstop developed the technology, then
a) wrapped it in enough broad patents to prevent anyone else from developing anything similar.
b) tried to get existing manufacturers to buy it and re-engineer their machines to include it. For whatever reason they decide not to. This could have been:
- SS was charging a monopolistic royalty
- At that time everyone knew table saws were dangerous and including this technology might open older machines (that could not be retrofit) to lawsuits like this
- They believed adding several hundred dollars to a machine would price it out of a competitive market
- All the above
c) Failing at 1b, SS tried to get legislation to require such devices (at which see 1a)
d)Failing at 1c, developed and marketed their own machine. One that has a $800-1000 premium over comparable machines without such feature.
2. Let's say that Joe Garage wants to buy a $500 or less table saw. Would he be willing to pay an $800 premium for the stop feature? Methinks not. So what is the manufacturer supplying to big boxes to do, produce one model with and one model without? Develop a black market for used machines? Same liability when Joe Garage damages himself because he's cheaped out.
3. Suppose all machines include the feature. When it fires, you have just ruined a blade and require installation of a new actuator and brake. At that point, it is probably cheaper to just replace the saw. How would Joe Garage feel about this when he's just tried to saw some overly wet big box construction lumber and has a false positive fire?
4. The manufacturers are woefully late at introducing riving knives, but they are now starting. And they have not given much engineering thought to making a reasonable blade guard, hence most people find them the pain they are, remove them and throw them in a corner. Even the instructional photos make the laughable comment "blade guard removed for photographic clarity."
