I am always amazed at how many people come down on SawStop for defending their patents in court and win, yet get bent when Asian companies blatantly make copies of patented products and copyrighted computer programs believe it is wrong and they should be stopped. Patents are there to protect the inventors ideas until they can make their money. Nobody gripes about 3M, GM, Boeing or any other corporation from taking out and defending patents so why is there a difference in this case? Bosch used the same way of detecting your flesh as SawStop did and were stopped. That's the way it is supposed to work.
When the blade brake inventor went around to all the companies making table saws to use his invention he was shown the door. They didn't want to pay up and change plus thought their other/older models without them would make their companies liable. He went and setup his own company and got the saws made and despite the cost have been selling well. Why in the world would he allow others to encroach on his patents? People may hate him for some of the tactics he tried to get the safety system made into law but that doesn't mean others can violate his patents.
The only reason Bosch got involve with blade brakes was because of a lawsuit they lost when a worker using one of their portable saws lost a bunch of fingers. If another lawsuit came up with someone hurt with an older saw they would be able to say the victim should have been using their safer model. There was no altruistic motivation by Bosch to protect people, only covering of their corporate butts. They still are seen by many as a hero and that baffles me.
First off, regarding legitimate patent theft. It is wrong, I whole heartedly agree. I don't buy much from China, and I'm wary when I do. Blatant patent theft is wrong, always has been, always will be. We shouldn't be conflating direct and blatant patent theft, with what happened with Bosch and SawStop though, which IMO was consequential and largely caused by overly broad patents.
If you read more, it sounds like SawStop likely has overly broad patents that shouldn't have been granted as they were, which is a real problem, and IMO part of the reason they have been able to keep any saw safety competition off the market. In more reading, it sounds like it was the "electrical detection of conductive flesh" that was the only actual patent violated...but that is, IMO, an extremely broad "patent". A patent is supposed to be about a specific implementation of an invention, not a broad description of a concept. I don't know exactly where SawStop falls on the spectrum of overly broad to very specific, but I'm still reading.
SawStop won, because the patents were granted and were still in effect (they may no longer be, though...sounds like the key core patents expired August 2021. More will be expiring through 2024, so we probably won't see this technology in any other saw until after that, but it sounds like most of the remaining patents really wouldn't prevent any ambitious company from successfully bringing a similar product to market. See the previously linked reddit thread for more). According to another article I read (i'll try to find the link), most of the patents SawStop claimed were violated were not. There were only two (although, one of them was one of those subsequent refining filings if I understand it right) about the flesh detection that stood. It was that single concept that kept a competitor off the market. That, IMO, is sad. We need competition in our markets to spur continued innovation...which is why there needs to be a certain amount of specificity to patents. An exact copy or direct theft of intellectual property is wrong...legitimate competition with conceptually similar, but specifically different implementations is healthy.
The kind of market domination SawStop has, in my honest opinion, is not healthy. I'm all for inventors receiving patents and being able to benefit from them, but there are (and should be) limits on the breadth of a patent. These days our patent laws have improved things in this area a bit, so it is harder to be granted a broad patent filing that would squeeze out too much legitimate competition... Sounds like SawStop squeaked some in 20 years ago, though, and IMO the state of the market for these larger table saws largely reflects that.
Also, keep in mind, there are a plethora of patent trolls out there these days as well. I'm not saying SawStop is a patent troll (although I did read about his attempts to get the laws passed, which IMO is rather sleazy and would have been terrible for a free market...people want safety, and that is enough of a driver on its own to support the technology and sales of saws with it, clearly), but patent trolling is another huge problem. Having a patent isn't just some cut and dry, simple thing that always appropriately and properly benefits the inventor. Patent law has been abused for decades, and has cost us a lot of innovation. The kind of patents SawStop has, and the plethora they have over a single invention, are the kind of patents that can allow patent trolling, and certainly can confuse things enough to stifle legitimate competition over fear of costly litigation. Patent law is a monstrous mess, especially in this country, and many companies have played the game extremely well to profit, unduly or excessively in some cases, off of patents.
Regarding the comments about Bosch's reasoning. I don't think that's fair. We honestly cannot know their reasoning. We can speculate, but I think its unfair to say they did it just to CTA. I think most people can see the effect SawStops patents have had on innovation of safety technology in this market, and I can see how they could look at ANY competitor trying to enter the market like Bosch did, regardless of their reasonings (which we again cannot know), as a hero... There are probably ways to implement other saw safety break mechanisms. Why haven't we seen any? I'd wager good money its largely fear of litigation from SawStop, because even if they have a legitimately unique system, if SawStop IS sitting on broad patents, the inevitable result would be litigation. What a horrible environment to try and innovate in, right?
Expecting a safety device to function after turning off the saw is... optimistic? Also, you would have had to remove the blade guard or just been downright careless if it was on so... I don't really see how you can make a dig at SawStop. 
