They've pretty explicitly been willing to release all of the relevant patents. The truth is it was always a red herring for their competitors. The major players all have systems that don't rely on these patents.
Lawsuit discovery showed all of them had developed their own technology that was fine, patent wise. But it would have eaten into their profit.
Personally, I have an altendorf handguard sliding table saw, which will stop as fast as the sawstop, but not destroy the blade.
I think free access to use the patented tech is only a part of the answer to building such a mechanism, and definitely a good first step. Looks to me like the build quality would make an even larger difference to the success of the device. For example:
> The fuse wire is designed to be stable enough to resist stretching or thinning over time despite the intense repeated vibrations from the saw use, ensuring it doesn’t prematurely release the spring.
"Just" some bad QA and the wire releasing the mechanism breaks too early needlessly destroying the saw, or too late needlessly destroying the hand. A patent won't fix that for the manufacturer.
Damn. I’ve wanted one of those for years. What model and what did it set you back?
That table saw looks very nice, but also $7,000? That's not the same market that people are talking about.
I'm not so sure if other companies have the ability at a sub $2000 price point! Bosch came out with their own system that they thought was different. The product was on shelves for a year and then SawStop successfully sued. If a major company like that is unable to do it even after their lawyers gave them the clearance, I'm a bit dubious it's that easy.