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: 526 - 535 of 624Next page of topicsPreviousNextNext page of topicsAllView as Outline
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
DysonInventsBig


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


Reply #531   Jan 26, 2009 3:57 pm
The existence of prior art and infringing the claims of prior art are distinct and separate matters.  It must be assumed Sanyo, nor individuals nor corporations attacked successfully any of Dyson’s [G-Force] Japanese patent/s.  Dyson’s licensee freely manufactured, advertised and sold $20m worth of Dyson technologies in a highly competitive market... Japan.

DIB
This message was modified Jan 26, 2009 by DysonInventsBig



CarmineD


Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894


Reply #532   Jan 26, 2009 4:15 pm
DysonInventsBig wrote:

  It must be assumed Sanyo.................

DIB



Hi DIB:

Assuming is risky business because one doesn't know the facts.  Assuming takes the facts out of context which leads to a pretext.  A pretext conceals the truth. 

Carmine D.

This message was modified Jan 26, 2009 by CarmineD
DysonInventsBig


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


Reply #533   Jan 26, 2009 4:39 pm
CarmineD wrote:
Hi DIB:

Assuming is risky business because one doesn't know the facts.  Assuming takes the facts out of context which leads to a pretext.  A pretext conceals the truth. 

Carmine D.


Carmine,

I simply followed your lead...  assuming is something you've ran with here.   If assumptions were removed from these many posts, I'd say at minimum, 40%-50% of your posting would have to go.  Take it easy and get off the Holier-Than-Thou soap box, we let you speak much and back up little.


DIB
This message was modified Jan 26, 2009 by DysonInventsBig



CarmineD


Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894


Reply #534   Jan 26, 2009 4:50 pm
Hello DIB:

As usual your conclusion is logically inconsistent.  You impugn me but follow my lead.  Thank you.  Words of advice:  Before you complain about the splinter in my eye, remove the log in yours! 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig


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


Reply #535   Jan 26, 2009 5:03 pm
CarmineD wrote:
Hello DIB:

As usual your conclusion is logically inconsistent.  You impugn me but follow my lead.  Thank you.  Words of advice:  Before you complain about the splinter in my eye, remove the log in yours! 

Carmine D.


Carmine,

The number one reason I come here is to hear you spread Dyson falsehoods.  Some I take on as a challenge.  You have made my Dyson game better and in the process I am reminded (by way of research) what an antiquated appliance the vacuum cleaner was until Dyson.

Dyson interviewed in Readers Digest (Feb, 2009), in it he says he made under $1b last year.  Does this make you happy?


DIB


Replies: 526 - 535 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