Abby's Guide to Vacuum Cleaners
Username Password
Home Discussions Reviews More Guides
Abby’s Guide > Vacuum Cleaners > Discussions > “Anything” Dyson that makes news.

Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Search For:
DysonInventsBig


Location: USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 1454


Original Message   Jun 28, 2008 12:41 am

Dyson is in the news frequently and so a dedicated thread.

.

This message was modified Aug 2, 2008 by DysonInventsBig



Replies: 521 - 530 of 624Next page of topicsPreviousNextNext page of topicsAllView as Outline
CarmineD


Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894


Reply #521   Jan 24, 2009 7:15 pm
Hi M00seUK:

Even Sanyo gets an honorable mention from the high court, as excerpted:

"Nevertheless, in recent years there has been an increased interest in cyclones as a result of their widespread use in domestic vacuum cleaners. This use was pioneered by Sir James Dyson (see Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd [2001] RPC 26 at [12]-[17] and [44]), although it turns out that one of the items of prior art in the present case (Sanyo, which was not cited in that case) pre-dates his work.

Wonder if Sanyo will sue dyson now over patent infringement?   Wouldn't that be ironic.

Carmine D.

This message was modified Jan 25, 2009 by CarmineD
DysonInventsBig


Location: USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 1454


Reply #522   Jan 24, 2009 11:53 pm
Trebor wrote:
DIB,

How well I know the resistance manufacturers have to any input from the outside, from design to advertising.

It has expired, but there is a patent with my name on it. I can look up the number and post it if you are interested. (This was pre-Reagan when it was possible to get a patent for under 1,000 dollars. )Reagan increased the cost out of the range of the average working schmuck, and so most patents are by engineers working for multi-nationals. The easiest way to aquire a US patent now is to file overseas and get it by reciprocity.

In addition to the above, I designed a tube/wand assembly that would essentialy give OBT convenience to power nozzle canisters, so a crumb, a corner, a cobweb could be whisked out 'on the fly 'without a disconnect at all. Rexair looked at it because the wives of several RGD's who saw it raved about it (one said it was the best invention since the vibrator! I found out later she actually meant the power nozzle) No dice, because it was from the outside. James Berkeley, an engineer at Electrolux was working on something similar, when I showed him my concept, he liked it better. James McCain, the chief of operations at the time, had me flown in to address his engineering team, the ONLY person in 80 years ever accorded that particular distinction. Three days of presentations, 8hrs a day. There was a lot to talk about!  Mr.McCain wanted so badly to bring innovative product to the market place and see Electrolux recapture and exceed its glory days of over 600 branches in the US alone.

There was to have been a field product development team, headed by yours truly. But Joe Urso sold us all down the river, including the veterans who trusted him with their 401Ks accrued from the days of Lux as a division of Consolidated Foods (Sara Lee). Most of them have died off by now, and there was talk of some widows getting up a class action lawsuit, but I never heard anything more about it. If there is a hell, Joe P. Urso deserves the hotseat at the left hand of Beelzubub himself. He destroyed an American icon for nothing more than senseless greed, but I digress.

I attempted once more to sell my concept of the OBT instant on tool wand to MD mfg. and was told that people spending 1500.00 or more for a vac system with sweep inlets would not spend an additional 100 to 150.00 to increase the convenience of using the system for instant spot cleaning with no disconnect of the wand, or even having to stand it up vertically. The problem is that most engineers who design products used primarily by women are-MEN who just don't understand the variety and complexity of routine monotonous tasks the average woman, employed or not, performs daily as her lot in life. It's why they multi-task better than we do, guys! It's the estrogen factor, get over it. Any married guys, ask your wife about the validity of my last statement.


Trebor,

Yes!  I would very much like to view anything you have.  You can post here or send/link to me privately, whatever you are comfortable doing.

Sorry to hear how you were mistreated and the others too.  Greed is a cancer.  I never had to jump through the many hoops you did only to be cut off at the knees.  My toy agent (one of the best in the country) presented my invention (novelty candy) to a major player, the company said it was a terrible idea, within 8 months they knocked me off.  It was at all the major retailers (name a venue that sold candy and it was there).  I would only made 3 cents per unit, I would not made much money anyway.  It was a great lesson learned and a lesson I will never forget. A lesson me and my wife will pass on to our kids.  Looking back, I am grateful for the rip-off. 

By contrast what did you think of the manufacturer that sold their business (mfg. ball bearings, I think) and gave out a few million in Christmas gifts (money) from some of the profits from the sale?  Those types of people are golden.

Did you view my thread on Oreck named as the assignee to the [Halo] husband and wife inventor team?  These two have some really good ideas (IMO).  Inventing for the tired vacuum cleaner isn’t easy.

I’ve spent much time as a Mr. Mom while recovering from major surgery.  Women's work is underestimated and under appreciated and unending.  A good wife is worth her weight in gold!  Building good/great product for "her" should be common sense.


Thanks,
DIB


CarmineD


Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894


Reply #523   Jan 25, 2009 6:58 am
CarmineD wrote:
Hi M00seUK:

Even Sanyo gets an honorable mention from the high court, as excerpted:

"Nevertheless, in recent years there has been an increased interest in cyclones as a result of their widespread use in domestic vacuum cleaners. This use was pioneered by Sir James Dyson (see Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd [2001] RPC 26 at [12]-[17] and [44]), although it turns out that one of the items of prior art in the present case (Sanyo, which was not cited in that case) pre-dates his work.

Wonder if Sanyo will sue dyson now over patent infringement?   Wouldn't that be ironic.

Carmine D.


With dyson sales of $1 BN a year, Sanyo could reap enough money for past dyson sales to expand and flourish very nicely in this economic sunami.  Probably put dyson in bankruptcy/reorganization.  What an ironic ending!

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig


Location: USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 1454


Reply #524   Jan 25, 2009 7:16 am
CarmineD wrote:
With dyson sales of $1 BN a year, Sanyo could reap enough money for past dyson sales to expand and flourish very nicely in this economic sunami.  Probably put dyson in bankruptcy/reorganization.  What an ironic ending!

Carmine D.


Hey Carmine,  can you demonstrate this Sanyo patent?  My bet is...  it was worthless as a consumer product.    DIB


CarmineD


Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894


Reply #525   Jan 25, 2009 7:44 am
Hiya DIB:

The high court of patents [see M00seUK's link] ruled in dyson's favor over Samsung but was impressed enough by a Sanyo product predating dyson's cyclone bagless art form, and/or a part[s] thereof, to give Sanyo an honorable mention.  Generally DIB, when a court here in the USA, not sure elsewhere, includes this verbage in a ruling/decision, it is a legal sanction/notice to the unknowing patent holder, that it may want to investigate/file legal action.  But, you being very smart, probably know this already, and hence the reason you asked me the question.  Since I am in no way familiar with the Sanyo patent/product save what M00seUK posted, I can't demo the worthiness of Sanyo's patent infringement claim/product against dyson.  I can only go by what the high court testified on Sanyo's behalf.  But I'd bet someone at Sanyo can.  Ironic isn't it?  Sanyo [Japanese] may become a silent future partner of James, whether he likes it or not. 

Carmine D. 

This message was modified Jan 25, 2009 by CarmineD
DysonInventsBig


Location: USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 1454


Reply #526   Jan 25, 2009 4:22 pm
Hey Carmine,

Well, I could not resist...  Dyson freely offers up and mentions the Sanyo (patented in Japan only) and you joke of Dyson owing Sanyo.  I jokingly offer up that the Sanyo devise may be commercially worthless and this is why it was not brought to market (assumed).  Dyson did bring to market an unbelievably great consumer product, and in my opinion it was the Fantom upright, only because of the shroud element (which completed the entire consumer friendly filter w/storage of dust & debris package).  Dyson may or may not been first at cyclonic’s, although he and his team have been recorded (patents) as the worlds first with a complete consumer friendly package.  “Dyson elements” have been adopted at a high rate of speed (clear bin) and in the last few years many medium and giant corporations have enjoyed profits when they smartly transitioned to and fully adopted (i.e. reversed engineered) the entire “Dyson consumer friendly filtering w/storage of dust & debris package.”

If any corporation owes money (royalties) to anybody, it is Dyson who is owed big time.  Competing corporations profit from Dyson and his teams hard work and not Sanyo’s.

You’re smart too, albeit for the wrong side.  :)


DIB




CarmineD


Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894


Reply #527   Jan 25, 2009 4:38 pm
Hello DIB:

Samsung cited the Sanyo patent to show dyson was not the first as it claims and therefore not entitled to claim the exclusive patent right.  Samsung's argument is that Samsung copied Sanyo, not dyson.  But Sanyo didn't sue.  Court didn't accept Samsung's view and ruled in dyson's favor.  This is understandable because had the court ruled in Samsung's favor, Sanyo then would have been precluded from suing dyson and/or Samsung in the future [the rule of law applicable here is called precedent]. 

Based on the court's ruling now in favor of dyson [a shallow victory], Sanyo can sue dyson and Samsung too.  Tho, this would be absolutely futile WRT a Samsung suit.  And, more importantly, as I've said, violates the inherent loyalty each company [Samsung and Sanyo] has to each other due to their common heritage.  

Based on the court decision, Sanyo can sue dyson now because the court ruled in dyson's favor against Samsung [for copy right infringement].  If successful, Sanyo stands to receive past and future royalties on all dyson sales world wide.  Ironic?  Dyson won the court battle against Samsung, but it stands to lose against Sanyo in the future.  If and when Sanyo proceeds with legal action.  The question is whether there is a statute of limitations which precludes Sanyo from legal action against dyson.  I suspect Sanyo is researching the legality now and depending on the results will proceed against dyson in the future. 

Carmine D.

This message was modified Jan 25, 2009 by CarmineD
DysonInventsBig


Location: USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 1454


Reply #528   Jan 25, 2009 8:29 pm
M00seUK wrote:
If you'd like to read more about cyclone separation technologies than most people would care about, head along to:-

http://alpha.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2009/55.html

...for the recent case notes of the Dyson Technology v Samsung Gwangju Electronics.


I very much appreciate you linking this doc here!!

DIB


M00seUK


Joined: Aug 18, 2007
Points: 295


Reply #529   Jan 26, 2009 10:07 am
CarmineD wrote:
Hello DIB:

Samsung cited the Sanyo patent to show dyson was not the first as it claims and therefore not entitled to claim the exclusive patent right.  Samsung's argument is that Samsung copied Sanyo, not dyson.  But Sanyo didn't sue.  Court didn't accept Samsung's view and ruled in dyson's favor.  This is understandable because had the court ruled in Samsung's favor, Sanyo then would have been precluded from suing dyson and/or Samsung in the future [the rule of law applicable here is called precedent]. 

Where does it say anything of Samsung citing the Sanyo parent? From the notes :-

Dyson alleges that the (Samsung) Patents are invalid on the grounds of lack of novelty or lack of inventive step over the following items of prior art:

    i) United States Patent No. 6,238,451 ("Conrad");
    ii) United States Patent No. 5,129,124 ("Gamou");
    iii) Korean Patent Application No. KR 10-2001-0018947A ("LG");
    iv) Japanese Utility Model No. 52-014775 ("Sanyo"); and
    v) Dyson's DC07 and DC08 vacuum cleaners.

Based on the court decision, Sanyo can sue dyson now because the court ruled in dyson's favor against Samsung [for copy right infringement].  If successful, Sanyo stands to receive past and future royalties on all dyson sales world wide.  Ironic?  Dyson won the court battle against Samsung, but it stands to lose against Sanyo in the future.  If and when Sanyo proceeds with legal action.  The question is whether there is a statute of limitations which precludes Sanyo from legal action against dyson.  I suspect Sanyo is researching the legality now and depending on the results will proceed against dyson in the future. 

The Sanyo invention is dated from 1977. I don't know conclusively, but I'd be surprised if Sanyo can take action on patents that have now expired. This patent *could* however have  changed the outcome if it had been put forward in the Dyson v Hoover case of 2000. I doubt the Dyson brief would have drawn attention to the (Sanyo) patent if it would have represented anything more than prior art.

CarmineD


Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894


Reply #530   Jan 26, 2009 12:39 pm
Hello M00seUK:

I thank you for the link too!  I read it and the other posts here about the matter.  I talked with some legal experts.  And I talked also with several patent lawyers who work for the PO in Washington, DC.  I suspect having just been adjudicated in December 2008, the fall out from the subject case will have repercussions that take time to be sorted out.   We'll have to wait and see how it goes and what happens.  To think this is the end of it is rather naive from both a business and legal perspective.  Japanese are relentless.  Like you said we have different opinions on the matter.  That's why there are courts with judges who decide on the legality of such matters.

Carmine D. 

This message was modified Jan 26, 2009 by CarmineD
Replies: 521 - 530 of 624Next page of topicsPreviousNextNext page of topicsAllView as Outline
Vacuum Cleaners Guide   •   Discussions  Reviews  
AbbysGuide.com   About Us   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Contact Us
Copyright 1998-2024 AbbysGuide.com. All rights reserved.
Site by Take 42