1. Manufacturers– “The saw brake technology adds around $100 to the cost of a saw. For expensive saws, that may not be a big deal. But for cheap $100 saws at Home Depot, it could double the price. The industry has said that’s unreasonable.” This is an evaluation claim because the manufacturers evaluate that doubling the cost of cheap saws so that they can include the safety brake is irrational.
2. Customers– “The bringer of the suit is essentially claiming that his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.” This is a causal claim made by a customer because they state that if Bosch and its competitors did not fight against implementing the safety technology they would not have gotten such a traumatic injury.
3. Industry Spokespeople– Several months later, Gass finally heard back from Delta. “No thanks. Safety doesn’t sell,” he says he was told over the phone. This claim made by Delta is a categorical claim because, to Delta, safety belongs in the category of bad business decisions or features that don’t sell.
4. Consumer Safety Advocates- “Despite my public urging for the power tool industry to make progress voluntarily on preventing these injuries, no meaningful revisions to the voluntary standard were made.”-Chairman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. This is an evaluation claim because the advocate states that despite his urging, the power tool industry has not made progress preventing injuries.
5. Injured Plaintiffs- He claims that Bosch, “acting through PTI, has also actively lobbied the Consumer Product Safety Commission … to prevent the adoption of flesh detection systems as a safety standard on table saws.” This claim is an evaluation claim because the plaintiff argues that Bosch urged the Consumer Product Safety Commission to not make is mandatory to use the flesh detection systems as a safety standard on all table saws.
6. Personal Injury Lawyers – “California legislators are trying to pass a law that would require all table saws sold after January 1, 2015 to have flesh-sensing safety technology. Proponents say the law would prevent thousands of injuries and billions in costs to society.” This is a causal claim because the lawyers are saying that if the law were passed, the result would be less injuries and money saved.
7. Government Officials– “The Table Saw Safety Act, AB 2218, was introduced in February, sponsored by Assemblyman Das Williams (D-Santa Barbara), would have required all new table saws manufactured for sale in California after January 1, 2015, to be equipped with a safety device that substantially reduces injury when human skin comes in contact with the blade.” This is a definitional claim because it explains what the Table Saw Safety Act, AB 2218 is and what it does.
8. News Reporters– “What came next is a bit of controversy as Gass attempted to pursue legislation to make his patented technology mandatory through the Consumer Protection Safety Commission, apparently after receiving little support for his proposal to license the technology to manufacturers.” This is an evaluation claim because the reporter says that Gass’s pursuit of making his patented technology mandatory is a controversy. This argument may also be a causal claim because the fact that there was a controversy could imply that Gass’s actions caused a problem.