Trebor

Scott,

Check out the hose retractor for electric CV hoses, the MD sectional hose, 20 foot length with and easily clicked in 10 or 15 ft extension. Also check out the Vroom, way better than a sweep inlet, IMHO

DIB,

Please, this is a non-issue. The mfg of mass market vacuums. TTI, Bissell, et al, ARE NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS.  They legitimately can use Dyson's EXPIRED patents. A US Patent is 17 years, how long do you think it should be?  For crying out loud, the man is on to other ideas, which again are patented for 17 years.  The DC 02 and 02 never were marketed in the US because the multi-cyclonic technology was already in production . Dyson made his own inventions obsolete. Good for him.  But what he did NOT do was create a vacuum that the lower half of the market wanted to buy.  Not everyone thinks the Dysons are pretty. Dyson was so full of himself he initially REFUSED to develop a brush roll suitable for American w2w carpet.  He finally got around to it, but without the pressure of the imitators it seems highly unlikely that the brush roll design of the Dysons would have advanced.  Patent protections do work. Hoover sued Bissell and won over the first upright carpet cleaner. Bissell paid Hoover a royalty on every upright carpet cleaner they sold until Hoover's patent expired.

Every product has had its imitators.  If the originator is lazy, his imitators will surpass her/him, because regardless of what you think, there is creativity in seeing a different configuration of a device or application of a principle. Remember, Dyson did NOT invent the principle of cyclonic separation, he merely thought of applying it to vacuum cleaners.  Cyclonic separation is the use of centrifugal force to separate materials of different densities. It has been in use for a more than a century in laboratories, and in sawmills.   If anything, the imitators you disparage so much have to work harder, because they have to compete against each other for sales.  They have to make a product user friendly, visually attractive, and cost effective, that will last long enough, but not too long, to continuously fuel sales.  Over 1/2 of all the roughly 20 million vacs sold per year in the US are at or below a 100.00 price point.  Not Dysons customers at all.  So even with competing for a share of the upper 1/3 of the market, selling 8K cleaners PER DAY in the US, in a recession, Dyson ain't doin' too shabby.  What are you complaining about?  Anytime a competitor adapts an expired Dyson patent,  Dyson can copy it/improve on it with impunity. FREE ideas here.  And why isn't Dyson's wondrous engineering staff taking apart every competitors model to see what might be worth using?  If they are not they should be.

Have you ever done anything creative, like art, music, writing, DIB?  Don't you realize the works of art inspire others to produce more art?  People do arrangements of a piece of music, and there are countless variations.  Be glad inventions are not like fashion design.  Do you know that there is NO protection for originality for designers, NONE? The PATTERN companies have copyright protection insofar as using a pattern directly to mass produce garments.  Technically, it is illegal for even ONE garment to be produced for profit, but the big concern is the mass production. But all anyone would have to do is trace the pattern onto different paper and tweak it, and it would be VERY difficult to prove fraud.  That's why the big money is in copyrighted trademarks, like the Nike swoosh, and names like Michael Graves.  It would have to be a really big case of fraud, and an open and shut case, with plenty of damages to be had for a pattern company to sue for copyright infringement. They just keep cranking out patterns and collecting royalties, just like Dyson US cranks out 8K cleaners a day, and Mr. Dyson collects his royalties on every single one.

Dyson is and always will be the first dry cyclonic separation vacuum cleaner with the clear dust bin.  His place in history is secure. That's what makes it special, the clear container.  That's what Dyson should have patented, in addition to everything else, the clear container.  That's what sells ANY bagless cleaner.  Who would care about no loss of suction if the dirt were in an opaque container?

Can we move on now?

Trebor

Severus,

You are right about the Rainbow water bath eliminating the odor from per hair, PROVIDED the machine is used and cared for properly.
If left set for two days with water in the basin, it smells like a sewer!  But it does clean extremely well.

At present there are several Rainbow competitors: Hyla, Pro Aqua, Blue Ocean, Delphin, Turmix, Robot.  I tried one of the early Hylas, liked it, but the P/N was not suited for American carpets. Saw the Delphin before they finally decided to sell the electric P/N instead of that silly little battery operated thing.  My D4 is running great, think I'll just keep it.

Trebor

DIB,

The 'mudbath' as you describe the Rainbow works extremely well.  I have one I use in my cleaning business (see my earlier post) that is 23 years old and still runs like new.  The Rexair was the FIRST water trap vacuum to use a separator. There are Rexairs in excess of 60 years old still working.  Think any Dysons will make it to even 20 years in daily use?

I am not defending anyone. Your perception that I am is indicative of a paranoid-schizophrenic personality. What I am saying is the patent laws are what they are. Any company is foolish to refrain from using patents which are available to it. And you, DIB are wasting time and posting space by accusing others of opinions holding they do not hold. Yeah, Bissell and TTI make low quality vacuums. And you know what? There is a market for them. People buy them.  I wouldn't, but then I don't buy a lot of popular stuff most people buy.

Ugly? That's a matter of perception. The Dysons, in my opinion, are no prizewinners for their looks. They are very industrial looking, not what I would call attractive at all.

You still have ignored James Dyson's claim that he invented the first and only vacuum cleaner that does not lose suction. I don't know about the water trap vacuum you mentioned prior to Rexair  as whether or not it lost suction in use, what I do know is that it did not use a separator, and thus, your bringing up the previous water trap vacuum, and lumping all water trap vacuums together as 'mud baths' is a misdirection away from the the fact that your St James either deliberately, or unwittingly made a false advertising claim when he touted his Dyson vacuum cleaners as "the first" and "the only" vacuum that doesn't lose suction. Not true.

Are you saying that you are unaware of the flimsiness of the hose on the upright Dysons, and/or the lack of a caveat in the manual not to tug on the hose to pull the machine around to a different direction?  I am sure anyone on this forum who repairs and or collects vacuums has seen the flaw I am mentioning.

Trebor

DIB,

I do know the derivation of the term 'sloppy seconds'.  The question is, who decides what is the 'decent' interval between a patent's expiration and copying/adapting it by others?  A century ago a widow who remarried in less than 5 yrs was considered less than a proper lady.  This is the same kind of issue. This is about what YOU consider fair, decent, and proper.  The marketplace is what it is.  Patents expire, they are challenged in court, people copy others' ideas.  Get over it.  Dyson ADAPTED cyclonic separation to a vacuum cleaner. He was inspired by cyclonic separation of sawdust from the air.  Kirby and Hoover already had expired patents for on-board tool designs. Singer and Hoover and Panasonic and Oreck, had already done the 'floating, self adjusting head' concept. As with most inventions it is the application/combination of existing ideas that brings something 'new' to the market place.  Dyson made a mint, good for him. To quote King Solomon in Ecclesiastes "There is nothing new under the sun" 

Trebor