Replies

1. 
   mitch | Sep 28, 2003 12:53am | #1

   yes it works great- but i would not use the supplied two-sided tape as it has a tendency to slip or creep-  probably from pushing against the inside of the case in storage.  to save yourself from having to do it twice, use a good 5 minute epoxy and make sure it's well cured before you put the unit back in the case. 

   i've heard p-c has managed to fix this problem with a type 3 version but i haven't seen one yet.

   m

1. 
   diddidit | Sep 28, 2003 05:03am | #2

   I don't think they can fix the problem - it's related to a patent infringement lawsuit by DeWalt.

   didBlah, yada, whatever, Hi how are you today

1. 
   mitch | Sep 28, 2003 02:36pm | #3

   that's what i thought, but just the other day i referred somebody else to fly-by-night copper co. for a shim and they told him the newest versions don't need it.  i haven't yet seen how they have supposedly fixed the problem-  and whether they used clever engineers or clever attorneys.

   m

1. 
   domermatt | Oct 01, 2003 06:43am | #4

   What's the difference between a type 2 and type 3 machine? I got a PC 557 2 years ago and it works great. Guess I shouldn't worry and just glad everything is as it should be.....

   When people 100 years from now see my work, they'll know I cared. --Matt Mulka

1. 
   mitch | Oct 01, 2003 04:28pm | #5

   the type 1 (which i believe is not actually marked as such) had a fence that folded up so that it was perfectly flush with the cutter face.  unfortunately, this involved using a mechanism that infringed on a dewalt patent.  to avoid that legal entanglement, p-c redesigned it so that when the fence is vertical it is about 0.010"-.015" forward of the cutter face (the type 2).  this made for a less than ideal situation when cutting slots in the middle of a board face- a very common operation- because the fence would be in contact with the material, but not the cutter face with its sandpaper for traction.  it also allowed the unit to tip or rock against the board if you weren't careful.  this "defect" could be fixed by attaching a thin aluminum shim (and new sandpaper) to the cutter face.  apparently p-c has come up with a way to fix this problem and is now selling a type 3 version with a fence that folds up flush with the cutter face again.  as i said before, i haven't seen a new one and don't know how they made the change.  for all i know, maybe they've gone back to the type one design after some favorable legal maneuvering.

   try taking a good close look at your type 2 (assuming a two year old unit is that model- it says on the label with the serial #, etc) and then go check out a new one at a store.

   m

2. 
   diddidit | Oct 01, 2003 06:40pm | #6

   My guess would be that they are paying a royalty to DeWalt. Given that DeWalt's patent applies to any plate joiner where the fence can be folded up to be flat, I don't see how mechanical changes would eliminate the patent infringement.

   I've got a 557 and love the thing, by the way. I haven't done any flat-face cutting, though.

   didBlah, yada, whatever, Hi how are you today

3. 
   mitch | Oct 01, 2003 08:00pm | #7

   i have some experience with patents (i have 3, with another half a dozen or so in the works) and without seeing dewalt's patent- and p-c's new version- i couldn't even guess what the situation is.  however, in general it is difficult to protect a "feature" of an invention, as opposed to the actual method or mechanism of achieving that particular feature.  that's why patents are typically written describing what is novel about what they are, not so much what they do.  it is at least theoretically possible for p-c to have engineered around the dewalt patent.  in other words, found an alternative method of mounting or articulating its fence so that it folds flush with the face of the machine, without infringing the other patent.  another possibility is that the dewalt patent has been ruled invalid or otherwise watered down to allow for p-c's original design or with a relatively minor modification.  it's simply not necessarily true that dewalt would be able to gain blanket protection against any and all fence mechanisms that happen to fold flush with the cutter face, regardless of the mechanical means by which that is achieved.

   m

4. 
   kostello | Oct 12, 2003 11:12am | #8

   what sort of things have you patented.

   out of idle curiousity not industrial espionage!!!!

   aleks

5. 
   mitch | Oct 12, 2003 05:21pm | #9

   an incredible (and incredibly complex) exercise machine that put me and a partner in the poorhouse before it could achieve any market success (seriously bad case of biting off more than one can chew first time out).  our finances were rescued by me inventing a small, lightweight chest protector for youth baseball players (the Heart-Gard) but eventually landed me and my ex-partner in a legal cage battle because he only wanted half of the $$, not half of the work.  i ultimately prevailed but it was definitely NOT fun (or cheap).

   now i've got a few other things on the drawing board- mostly tools of one sort or another.

   m

6. 
   kostello | Oct 12, 2003 10:24pm | #10

   have you got an inventors shed at the bootom of the garden??!!!

   aleks

7. 
   mitch | Oct 13, 2003 01:24am | #11

   if you would call a 1300 sq ft workshop out back of the house an inventor's shed, then yes actually.  the shop is still very much a work in progress itself- we've only lived here about a year and a half, with much of our time and $ consumed by the aforementioned legal battle.  that's ok, i get as much enjoyment out of creating the perfect workspace as the perfect widget and the delay has forced/allowed me to spend much more time refining the layout, design, etc.  the end result will be much better than if we had been able to start right in on it as soon as we moved here.  about a third is dedicated to metalwork of various sorts and the rest is for woodworking.  we're actually in the process of selling the rights to the Heart-Gard and while it is hardly for an obscene sum by today's standards, it will allow my wife and i the luxury of taking a few years off just to work on the shop and house, among other things.  it won't be near enough money, especially at our age (early 40s) and the investment climate as it is, to retire permanently, but it will make for a nice sabbatical.

   m

2. 
   Brewster201 | Mar 28, 2004 06:38pm | #12

   Hi there, can you post the web site for the shim.

                                                  Thanks

                                                   Bruce