50-60cc Chainsaw Comparison

[TimberCutterDartmoor]

  SawTroll said:

Autotune (early version) and part of the "strato" technology, as far as I know.

 

They have of course also adopted some older "Husky" features, but those weren't patented, as far as I know. The "Air Injection" never was patented, and the origin of the feature has been debated now and then. Two facts remain, something like it was used by at least Pioneer and Remington in the 1960s, and the "final touch" that made it the "Air Injection" had its first documented appearance on the 262xp in 1989. Saws like the P7700/2077 didn't get it before 1992 (model year, could be late 1991). The still open question is when the 2051 got it.....

 

If it was Partner, Jonsered or Husky that first dug up the ol' 1960s design and started working on it is an open question - but the Swedish production of all tree brands happened at the Husky factory anyway at that point.

 

I had it on rather official authority that Stihl were first with the electronics; husq merely allowed to copy it and couldn't make it work to start with i.e. 560 problems etc.

[Eddy_t]

  TimberCutterDartmoor said:

I had it on rather official authority that Stihl were first with the electronics; husq merely allowed to copy it and couldn't make it work to start with i.e. 560 problems etc.

 

 

So why do husky own the patent? You also forget, the 576 was the first autotune saw, using the same tech as what the Stihls currently do. The 560 was the new type of autotune.

[Stubby]

  Eddy_t said:

So why do husky own the patent? You also forget, the 576 was the first autotune saw, using the same tech as what the Stihls currently do. The 560 was the new type of autotune.

 

Thats how I understood it . 576 1st generation A/T 560 second generation . Give Stihl the crappy 1st ! .

[TGB]

Nowt wrong with the MS241's tech. Besides, why would you want to licence your best patents to your rivals. Stihl still has to pay for it and you get what you pay for. Well sometimes one does.

[SawTroll]

  Eddy_t said:

So why do husky own the patent? You also forget, the 576 was the first autotune saw, using the same tech as what the Stihls currently do. The 560 was the new type of autotune.

 

Yes, unless a few of the 575xpAT actually hit the market somewhere - but I believe it was transformed into the 576 before it reached the market anywhere. I had some correspondence with someone that was "user testing" a 575xpAT back then.

[SawTroll]

  TimberCutterDartmoor said:

I had it on rather official authority that Stihl were first with the electronics; husq merely allowed to copy it and couldn't make it work to start with i.e. 560 problems etc.

 

Obviously false "information", that doesn't add up with any facts - and there never has been documented a single issue with the AT itself on the 560/550 series' - only carb issues.

[Eddy_t]

  TGB said:

Nowt wrong with the MS241's tech. Besides, why would you want to licence your best patents to your rivals. Stihl still has to pay for it and you get what you pay for. Well sometimes one does.

 

 

Well, there was talk of husky purchasing Stihl in 2006, there were talks, negotiations and then NOTHING! But Stihl suddenly launches new models of saws with a shed-load of husky patents?

 

I would go as far as saying husky could be a major share holders, as they would never be able to buy Stihl until makita/dolmar or echo had a significant market share

[SawTroll]

One story (and the most plausible one I've heard/seen so far) is that it was the EU that persuaded Husky to let Stihl use some of their patents, to avoid a "monopoly" situation. I don't know the formal or the practical aspects of the deal though.

[Eddy_t]

  SawTroll said:

One story (and the most plausible one I've heard/seen so far) is that it was the EU that persuaded Husky to let Stihl use some of their patents, to avoid a "monopoly" situation. I don't know the formal or the practical aspects of the deal though.

 

 

I doubt that very much, there are no requirements or sanctions that can make a company share patents to avoid a monopoly of the market, besides Stihl could have used the 4-mix design. I would imagine there's a very large monetary gain for sharing of the tech if husky aren't at least a share holder

[SawTroll]

  Eddy_t said:

I doubt that very much, there are no requirements or sanctions that can make a company share patents to avoid a monopoly of the market, besides Stihl could have used the 4-mix design. I would imagine there's a very large monetary gain for sharing of the tech if husky aren't at least a share holder

 

May well be the case - I have seen several differen tversions on why the deal was done - but the important fact actually is that it was.

Exactly what the deal cover is of course a business secret, nothing odd with that.