| Name |
I support inventors! |
| Email Address |
private |
| AIM |
|
| YIM |
|
| ICQ |
|
 |
| Gender |
|
| Age |
|
| Location |
|
|
| Personal Quote |
I support inventors. |
|
| Privileges |
Normal user |
| Rank |
  |
| Points |
508 |
| Number of Posts |
508 |
| Number of Reviews |
0 |
| Date Joined |
Jul 31, 2007 |
| Date Last Access |
Sep 2, 2008 2:24 am |
|
 |
Re: New UK Hoover ranges at www.argos.co.uk
#1 Aug 26, 2008 7:49 pm |
|
|
|
|
Re: New UK Hoover ranges at www.argos.co.uk
#2 Aug 18, 2008 2:54 pm |
|
Trilobite, I have not seen the Vortex vacuum but the term “trumpet” shaped cyclone or alike came up often and that was where the infringement took place. Venson, The question amongst collectors most always is… Others invented the [dual] cyclone before Dyson. I have seen an upright (possibly Rexair?) patent, but I was not able to determine how it filtered exactly. This is very important to note... Hoover UK countersued Dyson and attempted to get the Dyson patent voided. Hoover’s position was - there was (much older) prior art out there. If I rember correctly, no Rexair patents of any sort were not used to demonstrate prior art, but instead 2 other and much older (than Dyson) U.S. patents (canisters, I think) were presented and the judge and he find prior art that pre-dated Dyson. I have some personal things that need attending and so in the future I may or may not be posting much. DIB
|
|
|
Re: New UK Hoover ranges at www.argos.co.uk
#3 Aug 17, 2008 3:10 pm |
|
Mole,I dislike the suits and/or owners much more than their vacuum products. I probably would say nothing of them if they played fair. I hate cheats and hate the rich and powerful cheats all the more. DIB
|
|
|
Re: New UK Hoover ranges at www.argos.co.uk
#4 Aug 17, 2008 1:04 pm |
|
Venson, Do not take my criticism of Hoover UK personal. Their thieving, dishonesty, scheming and un-innovative ways is their doing, not yours. While Hoover UK’s stealing from the much younger, smaller and much less profitable Dyson is celebrated and/or dismissed by vacuum enthusiasts and their “independent dealer” buddies who have DC07’s and/or DC14’s nailed to their floors. - The public, some Universities and those who teach patent law do not agree nor appreciate the giants (Hoover UK) taking what does not belong to them - taking from the little guys - taking Mr. Dyson’s intellectual property. Search vacuum sites and Hoover UK stealing from Dyson is dismissed, search Google and Hoover UK stealing from Dyson is hated. Thanks for the brushroll story (Hoover Eureka). Hoover worked hard, pioneered, proved and promoted a better way to clean carpets, but they left the patent door wide open and allowed Eureka to figure a legal way around Hoovers patents. Like I posted here before, it is Dyson’s own fault for not securing additional DC14 styled cyclonic patents that could have made building a competitive upright multi-cyclonic much more difficult or costly. His patents narrowly defined his cones to be placed inside the receptacle (bin). So what did the genius’s at Bissell, and TTI do?… They simply pulled the cyclone out of the bin and they beat Dyson’s patent. Dyson poured the R&D money and time into developing multi-cyclonic’s, poured $37 to $50 million annually in advertising dollars here in the U.S. telling the cyclonic story (its benefits) and now Bissell and TTI can enjoy/profit from Dyson work and money. I’m quite familiar with the DC15’s up and downsides. I have researched steerable vacuum cleaner patents, here in the U.S., Europe and in Japan. The Hoover UK steerable upright will prove to be difficult and not practical for a woman to use easily on carpeting. Dyson comes out with lightweight steerables and Hoover UK comes out with a clogging upright, that’s just as heavy as the DC15, yet harder to turn steerable, which is scoffed at here by anti-Dyson independents and enthusiasts. - Is Hoover UK on drugs? Maybe not, maybe the steerable DC15 is a winner in Hoover UK’s eyes. DIB
|
|
|
Re: Halo casts its "bread" upon the waters . . .
#5 Aug 16, 2008 5:42 pm |
|
Ken Garcia and his halo should have went the lightweight upright route first for $200 and transitioned into the retailers with a solid winner. Halo then could have added the UV-C light and upped the ante. Halo would still be a viable, on-going concern and flourishing. Instead halo is probably a goner: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. So much for one of the prognostications here that said "HALO is going to sell a ton of these things" due to the fancy schmancy web site. Consumers know a con when they see/hear it regardless of the media venue. Here lies halo, may it RIP. Carmine D. Carmine, Pulling my old quotes and pulling them out of context to bait me is funny, pathetic or both. And leaving out my later posts where I began to doubt Halo’s unnecessary and crazy claim’s. Leaving out the fact that I do research this industry and am the only poster here to post twice of NAD findings/judgments in regards to Halos advertising, this too is funny, pathetic or both. It is boring for me to correct you all the time, from here on I will simply call your falsehoods or misquotes of me lies, ok? . Good luck securing $20 - $50 million from investors with your tired commodity proposal. – A $200 lightweight vacuum that is “built with off the shelf, in the public domain parts and designs”. - Basically a non-proprietary nothing. DIB
|
|
