Donald Trump’s yes-men at the Consumer Product Safety Commission are withdrawing a series of proposed safety rules, including an appendage-saving safety mandate for table saws. This will mean thousands more fingers lost per year.
Donald Trump’s yes-men at the Consumer Product Safety Commission are withdrawing a series of proposed safety rules, including an appendage-saving safety mandate for table saws. This will mean thousands more fingers lost per year.
While I completely agree with your reasoning as far as it goes, I find it hard to believe this is the first incident of a proposed mandate where one company owns a blocking patent. There are reasonable ways to handle this, and most likely a pattern of previous examples. Why can’t the mandate take this into account.
Maybe the mandate could be contingent on them not enforcing their patent, maybe an independent testing entity, maybe everyone could compromise on smaller fees and objective qualifications so no one can be blocked. Heck, maybe it’s time to seize the patent by eminent domain, or to use that threat if needed for a fair negotiation