Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Hi all,

Following is a link to a news article regarding the up and down sides for Electrolux during this year's first quarter.

http://www.centredaily.com/business/technology/story/553091.html

Best,

Venson

CarmineD wrote:

Now you are admitting that the above is incorrect.     As I said :   Terms of the settlement were confidential

Your earlier view was that I was confused and that everyone knew the answer.  Your view as to both sides getting nothing is worthless..

HS:

Even a blind groundhog finds a acorn now and then.  Congrats on your acorn.

Still a big zip for dyson.  Didn't get a penny.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

They still broke the hoover thieves.

HARDSELL wrote:

Sorry, I disagree with you and others  Nothing lost, nothing gained.  HOOVER called dyson's bluff on the lawsuit and dyson caved.  No jury trial.   Dyson could have demanded the jury trial and asked for monetary damages instead of settling.  Dyson had the best legal team money could buy.  Dyson settled because it knew [its lawyers knew] the suit was a frivolous and dyson would lose.

Carmine

CarmineD wrote:

Terms of the settlement were confidential

Read  above.  You have no idea what the settlement was.  Prior to today you did not know that the settlement was confidential.  Another example of why no one takes your advice.

HARDSELL wrote:

Hello HS:

Tom Gasko alias and/or infamous dualcyclone and motohead brags about the HOOVER/dyson Fusion litigation and now the supposed Electrolux lawsuit.  At the time dualcyclone drew an anology with the the Lionel lawsuit.  Lionel was ordered to pay $40 Million for patent infringement.  Tom Gasko said the same would happen for HOOVER.  Obviously, the HOOVER/dyson lawsuit never happened.   

The Lionel jury award of $40 Million was overturned in the courts.  A new trial was ordered.  I already told you the reason.  The patent and copy right laws were changed making it more difficult for alleged aggrieved parties to prevail.  Why?  That's for another discussion.  The Lionel retrial never happened.  The plaintiff settled with Lionel.  Terms undisclosed.  Sound familiar? 

Shortly after the settlement was announced, Lionel emerged from bankruptcy, stronger than ever.  No $40 million liability on its records for the suit.  The same as Whirlpool when it bought Maytag/HOOVER.  There was no liability on the financials for the settlement of the dyson lawsuit.  You have to disclose the long term liability on the financials every year until paid regardless of the terms of the legal agreement. 

Carmine D.

Carmine, are you saying history didn't happen?  Dyson did take Hoover to court.  Even if there was no monetary settlement, the lawsuit still happened.  The reason for the lack of settlement is that it *is* China after all, who does not honor international patent.  The main point here is that Dyson did bring a lawsuit. 

No one stated *anything* in regards to a possible settlement, in fact it was quite the contrary.  I am not speculating on any type of settlement, I just know that Dyson will take this to the advertising authority and sue Electrolux over their claim of their machine being the "world's first".  This claim will undoubtedly be removed after the lawsuit occurs.

That's what this upcoming lawsuit will be about.  No more, no less.

-MH

Motorhead wrote:

Hello Tom:

Now the truth according to Tom Gasko.  Seems the settlement terms are more well known than people said and thought.

I followed the developments on Lionel for several years [because you used the $40 million jury award to brag about what HOOVER would have to pay to dyson].  And I followed the dyson/Maytag litigation for obvious reasons.  I knew if there were a monetary settlement against HOOVER by dyson you would be the first to post on all the vacuum Forums and here.  And if there weren't you would not.  BTW, both Lionel and MTH are USA companies not Chinese. 

I also knew that any monetary settlement for a lawsuit, MUST be disclosed in the financial statements of the companies.   I make a habit of reading financial statements.  

I had to wait for the best time to post here.  And bring all the different pieces together after more than 4 years.  Obviously, I needed your willing but unknowing cooperation.  On the night of a full moon no less.  Thank you.

How's that for a biting sense of humor.

Carmine D.

Motorhead wrote:

MH,

I believe James has a number of options, he could…

• Do an email media blast and demonstrate (linking back to his site, with video, pictures, information) and prove he was “there first, again” (establishing his leadership with innovation and/or environment) with a green and even a more green vacuum than Electrolux’s.  Let the media tell the Dyson story with free publicity, and let consumer’s deicide if Electrolux has credibility.  He can wait just long enough for Electrolux to get the word out on their vacuum to the consumer, and when the time is "right" send a mass media blast with a simple click of a mouse.  Could it not be any easier?  This is newsworthy stuff IMO.
• Advertise or dedicate a web page on his site to this and other accomplishments.  He should already be doing this regardless of Electrolux’s green vac.
• File a complaint with the Truth In Advertising powers in a given country.  This is much cheaper and quicker than a lawsuit, but can be defied until enforced by a greater authority.
• File a lawsuit.

DIB

Hello DIB:

Suppose that Mr. Dyson calls upon his legal counsel to file a lawsuit against Electrolux.  What exactly would be the basis [bases] for such a lawsuit? 

Explain to me [and others here] if you would please the argument that dyson's legal team would make to a judge/jury against Electrolux?  What right, claim, patent, idea, invention and/or intellectual property does only dyson own and only dyson can use?  To the complete exclusion of all others [and in this case Electrolux].  And use by anyone else, other than dyson, once they are officially put on notice of such usage if they refuse to cease/desist, warrants legal action and remedy.

Make believe I'm as stupid as Tom Gasko and some others here say.   Explain it so a 6 year old hearing you can understand. 

Thank you, very kindly.

Carmine D.