He claims that the inventor of the flesh detection brake offered Bosch a licensing agreement in 2000 during a Power Tool Institute meeting, but Bosch rejected the offer. He furthers that Bosch Tool “colluded with its competitors” to develop their own version, and continued to sell their dangerous table and miter saws.

• A. He claims that the inventor of the flesh detection brake offered Bosch a licensing agreement in 2000 during a Power Tool Institute meeting, but Bosch rejected the offer. He furthers that Bosch Tool “colluded with its competitors” to develop their own version, and continued to sell their dangerous table and miter saws.
• B. The claim is that Bosch rejected Gass’ deal not because they were against furthering safety, but so they wouldn’t have to pay royalties to Gass for the installation of one of his safe saw units in each saw.
• C. I think the claim is a causal claim because Bosch didn’t install Gass’ technology because they are planning to install their own.
• D. The logic behind this claim is pretty sound because I don’t believe Gass’ technology is so groundbreaking that only he knows how to manufacture a saw stopping device. It makes sense that Bosch  would rather develop their own than pay Gass royalties.