House Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) posted a video to X on Wednesday explaining why she’s opposing a rule that would mandate finger-detection technology for table-saws, which could potentially stop over 4,000 amputations and 30,000 injuries a year.
“A new rule mandating finger-detection technology in table saws could raise costs by hundreds of dollars and result in a government-mandated monopoly,” the lawmaker wrote on X. “I introduced a bipartisan bill to protect consumer choice and block this mandate until the patents for this tech are made public.”
The pushback, however, was swift. Gluesenkamp Perez was accused of blocking an important safeguard, and, perhaps jokingly, of being in the pocket of “Big Saw.”
“Idk man. I think people getting to keep their fingers is good,” posted @jake_jmc20985.
For her part, Gluesenkamp Perez says she opposes the rule because it could raise the cost of table saws by hundreds of dollars and create “a government-mandated monopoly” for the company behind the technology, SawStop.
SawStop’s technology stops and retracts the table-saw blade as soon as it detects an electrical signal from a finger. But that technology costs hundreds more than other low-cost models, reported the New York Times in March, and only captures about 2% of the market.
In November, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), a US government agency, proposed a regulation which would require finger-detection technology in home and industrial table saws within three years.
According to Gluesenkamp Perez, because the patents behind that technology are currently held by SawStop, the law could create a virtual monopoly for the company given that when the rule goes into effect, they’ll be the only ones with a compliant product on the market.
SawStop has pledged to make the patent on their technology free to the public as soon as the rule goes into effect. But Gluesenkamp Perez and Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) argued while introducing a bill opposing the rule change that only making the patent available when the change goes into effect wouldn’t give companies time to design their own products to comply with the rule. Their bill proposes that the rule not go into effect until five years after the patents have been released to the public or expired.
CPSC acknowledged in a discussion of the rule that for small manufacturers to design their own version of the technology it would cost a minimum of several hundred thousand dollars, and up to several million dollars. And while SawStop releasing their patent could give companies a break if they wait until the rule goes into effect to start designing a new product, some manufacturers told the agency that retooling new table saw models to include the finger-detecting technology could cost between $100,000 and $700,000 per model and take 1 to 3 years to carry out.
CSPC Commissioner Richard L. Trumka Jr. said in a statement in February that SawStop pledging to release the patent removed “a key obstacle” to selling saws with the finger detecting technology.
“While the power tool industry’s lobbyists will likely pivot to new arguments against CPSC’s proposed rule, the public should remember that their grumblings about SawStop’s patent being an impediment are moot,” Trumka said. “Manufacturers have many ways to comply with CPSC’s proposed performance requirements for table saws, now including the use of previously patented technology.”
He went on to praise “robust competitive pressures” and an “active market” which would drive down the cost of the table saws.
That sort of narrative made up the bulk of the response to Gluesenkamp Perez’ video on X.
“StopSaw’s competitors have been negligent in refusing to develop their own competing tech. You shouldn’t let that negligence constrain policy making,” wrote @CSwampthing, taking a more serious tone.
But other posters took a more digit-less appendage in your face tack.
“Hi ma’am. Greatly respect your work on allowing fingers to be cut off. Thank you,” posted @LaborPal.
“‘You should cut off your own fingers!’ is quite a platform to run on,” riffed @jonvankin.
Others pushed back on the jokes, promoting a free-market case for opposing the law.
“Preventing government overreach regulating every detail of our lives is a good thing,” wrote @cooper_logan in response to a joke.
And some thought there might be a middle ground.
“You know you could support a subsidy or a tax incentive instead of letting folks get maimed in accidents 🤷♂️,” posted @AnthonyMKreis.
The internet is chaotic—but we’ll break it down for you in one daily email. Sign up for the Daily Dot’s web_crawlr newsletter here to get the best (and worst) of the internet straight into your inbox.
