Vacuum Cleaners Discussions |
|
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
|
M00seUK
Joined: Aug 18, 2007
Points: 295
![]()
|
 |
Reply #529 Jan 26, 2009 10:07 am |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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
|
DysonInventsBig
Location: USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 1454
![]()
|
|
|
Reply #535 Jan 26, 2009 5:03 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. 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
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Reply #536 Jan 26, 2009 5:16 pm |
|
Carmine,
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.
DIB Hi DIB: Ah....for you, it's a game. Too bad. For me, it's a vocation. One that makes me very happy. Thanks for asking. Carmine D.
|
HARDSELL
Joined: Aug 22, 2007
Points: 1293
![]()
|
|
|
Reply #537 Jan 26, 2009 6:11 pm |
|
|
|
|
