As I understand, the inventor tried to license the technology to other sawmakers but no one wanted to take it on. I suspect that their lawyers couldn't believe that it would work, and didn't want to take the risk if it didn't.
Ah, here's the full story:
http://failuremag.com/index.php/feature/article/give_this_saw_a_hand/
The inventor is in fact a patent attorney (and a woodworking hobbyist)--which explains his strategy: expand the patent portfolio and push for legislative encouragement---while producing a quality product. The legislation he's (I say he but it's a corporate strategy) pushing for is flesh-detection technology; currently SawStop's is the only one on the market, but (a) SawStop's patent has got to be expiring soon (I can't find the patent date but the company incorporated in 2000, and the patent monopoly lasts 14 years) and (b) there are competing technologies being developed.
See:
http://thewoodwhisperer.com/a-sawstop-killer/
I'm an optimist, but I see the system working well here: This guy had a great idea, he tried to pitch it to other companies and they didn't buy it; he knew that he'd have to bring out a high-quality saw in order to make it in the marketplace, and the monopoly on the technology made it possible for SawStop to invest money in making really good saws (by all accounts, whether you figure in the "stop" technology, they're high-quality machines).
In the Osorio lawsuit, on the other hand, things went absolutely insanely wrong:
http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/26939/more-details-on-the-carlos-osorio-tablesaw-lawsuit
The jury really flubbed that one (as I don't think I need to elaborate).
Edit: my wife works in patenting and licensing, hence my more than passing interest in all this! The system ain't perfect by a long shot, but it's less messed-up than a lot of things.