This is Stumpy Nubs argument (YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxKkuDduYLk); that patience, forethought, and use of a blade guard and other tools would prevent most injuries. I'm in agreement.

But I don't think that companies are trying to make the tools more expensive. In fact, it was the opposite. SawStop sold high-end saws, other manufacturers did not want to adopt the technology because of the cost it added.

The issue of proper saw safety and use of sawstop technology are two different issues, I believe. And while I agree, the proper safety procedures you cite should be used by everyone, they aren't. In fact, they often aren't. And we can sit here and shake our fingers, but it won't change the overall culture around them. And I think that's the conclusion that regulators have come to as well: They're not going to get people to always use their blade guards or count to 10, so they'll mandate adoption of a technology that mitigates the risk due to people not following directions.

Regarding the licensing, I think that's been addressed by others elsewhere. But in short, SawStop defended their patents in order to license the tech. When the government moved to mandate it, SawStop said they wouldn't enforce their patent, but they're not handing the tech over either. Other companies are free to develop their own method without running afoul of SawStop's patents, or they can license SawStop's tech. To me, it seems like a fair approach that both protects their investment while not putting themselves in a morally questionable position in taking advantage of the upcoming regulation.