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:

Carmine, there are some differences…

Kenneth J. (an engineering student), in his patent and claims stated he invented a steerable upright.

.

Stephen Benjamin Courtney, an engineering graduate (assumed), in his patent and claims stated and suppored by proof, that he invented a steerable upright.

.

I see nothing in the K.J. patent that makes me believe it could steer or steer easily.        DIB

CarmineD wrote:

Hey Carmine,

I’m going to ask not to be used as a reference (although I did say a lawsuit was plausible) on any future pie throwing posts.  FYI, I happen to like your challenges and I appreciate what Motorhead contributes here, especially Dyson.  Thanks.

 

The reason we saw only 1 manufacturer knock off Dyson LTD’s innovations is due to James Dyson’s resolve and using the courts (lawsuits) to define/remind others what belongs to him.  The courts and news reports punished Hoover Candy terribly over them stealing James’s intellectual property. – This sent a message loud and clear to the vacuum manufacturing industry.  Only after the Dual Cyclone patents expired did Hoover Candy, and Bissell copy James’ Dual Cyclone.  Hoover U.S. gambled on producing a vacuum using near expired Dyson Dual Cyclone patents, which may or may not have been money up or not much money up for them.  I think Hoover/Mayag lost on this lazy gamble in the short and long term.  Why?  Great ideas come from outside inventors, not just employed engineers.  What outside inventor will be stupid enough to trust a willful thief?        DIB

Hi DIB,

Thanks for the patent clarification and proving that (once again) the Kenneth J. Weger patent has virtually no relevance on this thread (or concerning Dyson for that matter; two completely different machines).  I can see where the main body of the machine articulates, however, it does not appear that the nozzle can be easily steered as on the Dyson patent.  It's easy to tell why this lawsuit was thrown out; Dyson did not copy the patent but instead took the basic design and improved on it like they have done many times.  As for the name of his device, the "Ball Wheel Facilitator", I believe that is misleading because the term "ball wheel" implies that it is a single ball wheel, when it is instead two convex wheels that move with the articulated body of the cleaner.  Like you said, I do not see how this could be steered easily unless the nozzle floated somehow (since the nozzle is obviously not on a pivot itself), and even then I have to wonder how effective this steering mechanism would be.   Since Kenneth J. didn't actually produce a cleaner, we will have to leave it up to our own opinions.

As far as the Electrolux/Dyson issue with the recycled cleaner, do I predict it will be a huge blowup?  No, but something *will* happen eventually, most likely Electrolux removing their "world's first recycled vacuum cleaner" claim with a minimum of fanfare.

-MH (too far South to be my friend Tom G. lest you forget Carmine )

Hello DIB:

I thought for sure you would cite Mr. Dyson's use of the ball for the wheel barrow in 1974 as proof that the ball wheel was his long before Kenneth J.  While not relevant in a court of law, it would carry weight here for your argument.   Here is some reference material excerpted for you/others to enjoy:

Ballbarrow

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

I don't usually.  This was a rare and one time occasion here.  The purpose, which it served, was to tone down Tom Gasko's perverted perspective which is always to cry lawsuit whenever he perceives dyson is wronged.  

I note from his most recent post that it worked.  He's revised his original position.

Carmine D.

Motorhead wrote:

Hello Tom:

My thinking and memory are working fine and are no concern of yours.  You'd be better served to be concerned here with your own.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

But Hoover/Candy do not use the dual cyclone set-up. They use a single cyclone and pleated filters.

Hoover/Candy got its knuckles rapped over the 'Triple Vortex', which was shown to be a variation of the dual cyclone set-up, with an involute vortex separator. Hoover was thus banned from using the technology for an extra year beyond when the other manufacturers could use it.

However, Hoover had already moved onto the single cyclone + pleated filter arrangement, as used in the 'Vortex Power', 'Hurricane', 'Whirlwind', and 'Dust Manager', and 'The One'.

Trilobite wrote:

Trilobite,

Yes, your right!  One can get a little lost keeping up with - who stole Dyson intellectual property, who’s copying Dyson intellectual property before its patent/s expired, who’s copying Dyson’s expired intellectual property, who helped Hoover U.S successfully keep and use Dyson’s un-expired intellectual property in the Hoover v. Dyson countersuit.  It’s Vax, and not Hoover Candy who I was thinking of that is using expired Dyson intellectual property and not Hoover Candy.  Thanks.        DIB

.

P.S.  Talk about lazy.... Vax even stole James’ tag he created and/or made famous. - “No Loss of Suction”. 

mole wrote:

Hello Mole et al:

The local Fry's Electronics advertised new DC07 All Carpets on clearance/closeout for $299 for Memorial Day. 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

But Vax trumped dyson by upping its warranty [parts and labor] on new vacuums to 6 years!

Carmine D.