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

Isn't it funny the first restructuring a company does is to let people go (usually lower Mgt and workers). So there are more people out of work and less people to have money to buy product.

Hi Lucky1,

You're right.  But that's the awful truth about large-scale business .  While the rank and file allow our minds to rest on small sums, money that might only allow for a few years of existence -- maybe several hundred grand at most for a house, maybe a couple hundred grand more to spend on a kid's education. -- in the real picture the big kids in corporations and companies have their mind on real money . . . millions maybe billions.  So-called "cutting the fat" may or may not be a comfortable issue with those seated at board tables but corporations are essentially formed and built to survive and . . . to keep stockholders happy.  That leaves little room for "kindness".  These companies know the streets are full and that they'll have no problem in taking on help when they feel they reached a point where they can afford to be generous again.

What I hate is unfairness of it all.  It feels as though the question, "Who the heck are you?" is put to us almost daily even though, whatever our income bracket, we feed these business behemoths daily with our money?  BUT -- if you or I go broke there'll be no goverment bail-outs.  No one will come to guarantee payment of our debts or supply a line of credit to see us over the hump on the road toward better times.  While there will more than likely some or all sorts of aid for major corporations when pickings get thin, there's little relief for many left without work.  There will be no adustments made on their behalf and many will see their homes be foreclosed even though the banks involved will probably find no one to buy them.

My favorite quote is a statement made by a business woman I used to work for.  "Ven," she said, "Never pay anybody anymore than you just have to."  And she never did.

Best,

Venson

Thanks Venson:

Interesting read.  The E-lux CEO is optimistic to believe that full year 2008 operating results will be in-line with 2007.  I don't believe any of the large appliance makers/sellers, like GE, Whirlpool, E-Lux, will come close to matching their 2007 results.  Instead much worse. 

Carmine D.

While the rank and file are getting riffed, Ms. Kelly Rippa [the better half of the dynamic Regis and Kelly Duet] is the poster "hottie" for the new BEST BUY E-Lux  appliance line.  The new TV ads are airing.

Her husband is one lucky man.

Carmine D.

Hi,

Came across another article regarding the Electrolux dilemma. The following quote is debatable I'm sure . . .

Per Hans Straberg -- "The US economy has been on a downward slope for the last seven quarters. The headline at the moment is uncertainty.  A vacuum cleaner is a purchase you can live without when you have money constraints."

Thinking on the high prices for any Electrolux product sold in the U.S., wouldn't you think the brand might be passed by?  Is it funny that wall ovens, fridges, washers and cooking ranges selling for anything from one grand to way over might not also be not be on the minds of those -- which is just about everybody -- living under under "money constraints"? I think vacuums and washers, refrigerators and all the usual household appliances will continue to sell.  However, I think the general public will begin to figure that maybe they can live life just as well without expensive niche brands and get to liking names like Hotpoint instead of Miele, et al, again.  Link follows --

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/05/04/ccelec104.xml

Best,

Venson

Venson wrote:

A vacuum is not on display in the home like the appliances that you mention.  Those items are also considered as a status symbol by many.  In addition they are usually expected to last many years without replacement, wheras a cheap vacuum will hold the consumer until finances are in better order.  The fact that so many cheap vacs like Hoover and a few others is proof that most consumers could care less about the vacuums looks or performance.  Besides so many hire a maid to run the vacuum and do not know if it is performing at max.

HARDSELL wrote:

Hi Hardsell,

I agree that there are those who do buy not just for service but to impress the neighbors as well.  However, I think the larger part of everyday consumers are getting ready to pull their belts in a notch or two.  I'm not much inclined to concern myself  over what the neighbors think unless they want to contribute to the rent.  No volunteers so far.

In my own case, I've been trying to figure out how to redo my very small cooking facility to make the best use of limited space.  As an instance, there are lots of great ideas I've seen like drawer refrigerators which cost nearly twice as much as a full-size refrigerator/freezer.  I could buy one but can't quite see the point in buying something half the size for twice the money.  Is there any real advantage in regard to quality in this case?  I don't think so.  While researching prices I actually got a salesman on the phone from Summitt, a manufacturer specializing in many kinds of configurations for refrigerators, freezers and cooking ranges, and put the question to him.  Regarding the issue of the high price of drawer refrigerators he made it known that there is nothing all that special about the making of them but that the speciality of the design pushed up pricing.  The desire to have something different therefore costs money. Looks like I'll be keeping the refrigerator I've got  and I'll try to work around it.

I'm as skeptical about kitchen ranges.  I've been looking over 24" gas ranges from as low as $300 to as high as $2,500.  Thinking extravagantly, why a small gas range could rise beyond $500 or $600 dollars at best I cannot fathom -- but they do.  Again, I might bite and go for an expensive item if it appeared that there might be some real edge benefit-wise for the spending other than good looks. Will an egg scramble any better on a plain-jane range from Sears or one by Fisher & Paykel?  That remains more an issue regarding the cook than the stove.  I rather spend substantially less money on a good pot or skillet that might enhance my possibilities for a good result and deal with a lesser range.

Best,

Venson

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

This sounds an awful lot like you think price determines the sales of the vacuum products.  When MOLE posted this a little while back you disagreed and rebutted with the fact that so many dysons are sold.  Are you now having a change of heart/mine?

Carmine D.

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

I agree that people are cutting back on many expenditures which ultimately affect the home decor and lifestyle.  Just to pay gas and food coats.  This impacts and affects manufacturers of high price, high end products like autos, appliances, clothes etc.  We've seen some companies close, stores shuttered, and bankruptcy filings.  Sure, there's more to come.  I think AB Electrolux's intro in the USA is an uphill battle.  The timing is bad.  If the economy were hitting on all/most cylinders, the success would be more likely.  But with the current economic environment, about the only thing the new appliances at BEST BUY will do is look good and need dusting every week.

Now, if Kelly Rippa wants to accompany the BEST BUY delivery truck and installers to my house for my purchases, I might reconsider. 

Carmine D.

Just so the truth be known about the ELECTROLUX vacuums,it's just a rebadged eureka oxygen,with very marginal attachments,Lets see now take a 200.00 eureka oxygen put the electrolux name on it and ask 500 plus for it .Boy what marketing genius that is................

MOLE

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

I think this answers your question about my thinking.  If the economy is good the consumer will pay more for a vac. 

HS:

I knew you would respond in that manner using my post.  Thank you.

I think Mole hit the nail on the head about vacuums and price.  Most vacuum buyers go to big box stores to buy a vacuum that lasts a few years, then dispose and buy new again.  Regardless of the state of the economy.  Those who buy quality vacuums from independent vacuum stores will do so in good times/bad.  Why?  Because in bad times, they'll have the quality vacuum repaired and continue to use it.  In good times, they'll buy another new quality vacuum by trading up/gifting away the old to a family member.

Now for high priced vacuums in big box stores:  In bad times: you got it.  They ain't gonna sell.  Dyson, electrolux, and whatever other brand you put into a big box store with a high price.  Read halo!

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I know several Dyson owners who live in homes costing 1 - 2 Million $.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

I know several HOOVER and DIRT DEVIL vacuum owners too who live in expensive homes costing a million and more.  And some persons who live in Section 8 housing who use and like dysons.  It's irrelevant to "most buyers" who shop at the big box retailers who are cutting back now on high price purchases so they can buy food and gas and make their mortgage payments [read survive].

Big box retailers want to sell new vacuums every year.  These are commonly called the disposable vacuums not the repairable ones.  If vacuums sit on the shelf unsold, they take up space.  Retailers NOW  [read hard economic times and people not spending for high cost items] prefer less expensive vacuums that sell quickly. [Look at the big box retailers' advertised sales in the weeklies].  Not $500 plus vacuums that don't sell in the bad economic times at the big box stores. 

I said that a few posts up.  Mole said it awhile back.  You agreed with us.  Hard not to.  Common sense and real life. 

Carmine D.

I see my man Rege and his lovely cohost Kelly are gifting away Electrolux appliances to their audience members and TV viewers. 

Carmine D.

Electrolux launches a "Green" vacuum.  Story here.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
OH MY.  There's going to be a lawsuit very soon, James is not going to let this one go.  For anyone who doesn't remember the ReCyclone (a remanufactured DC02 that was around circa-1998), let me tell you about it.  It was in fact the world's FIRST recycled vacuum cleaner; the ONLY new components were the cord, switch, and motor.  The manual was printed on 100% recycled paper, the box was 100% recycled cardboard, and the machine was placed in a burlap bag within the box (no polystyrene packaging).  Ironic that James could actually make his "green" vacuum, well, green, and Electrolux can only make it black. 

Get ready, folks, it's coming.  There's gonna be a dustup in the old town tonight...

-MH

And did you notice the "healthy, hygienic, and environmentally friendly dust and dirt disposal" is none other than a *non-micro* bag made out of 100% cellulose?  How is that environmentally friendly to make a vacuum bag by cutting down trees, and not a good one either that only holds 3 cups of dust?  Talk about vacuuming for 10 minutes.  That washable HEPA filter was a must because all the dirt is going to leak out, it will have to be washed at least after every bag change.  I hope they were smart enough to put it in front of the motor and not behind it, though considering what the machine is so far, I somehow doubt it. 

All they did was take one of those awful, crappy old Eureka Oxygens and make it out of SOME recycled plastic (keyword 55%), it's not even 100% recycled like the ReCyclone.  I bet James is having a good laugh over this one.

Motorhead wrote:

Hello MH:

Do you recall a similar pronouncement made in June 2004 when HOOVER intro'ed the FUSION at Wal*mart after the fall out over the DC07 All Carpets?  I believe the exact words of the poster were:  "A big legal action by dyson all wrapped up in a big red bow."  Then the alleged infringements were for dyson's bagless bin components and cyclone technology, if I recall.  Nothing ever happened over the matter despite repeated mention by the poster.  And the HOOVER FUSION went on to have a long run at WM and Sam's Club and still today as the Mach.

Is this the same?  Another wolf cry with no wolf anywhere around to be seen. 

BTW, from what University/College did you get your law degree?

Carmine D.

Carmine,

Dyson v. Maytag, did it happen?  Yes.

 

• Lawsuit filed on 6/5/05
• Jury trial demanded.
• Dyson claims 4 of its patents were infringed by Hoover (Walmart/Fusion)
• Patent’s:  4643748, 4826515, 4853008, 5858038

DIB

CarmineD wrote:

The Fusion lasted less than 3 years and you call that a long run, yet you have contended for years that Dyson would falter,  Does anyone else find this amusing?  LOL>

Here it is...  The ReCyclone.

  Enlarged pic

This is the Fantom canister from back in the day with a new color.

Venson

Hi Venson,

Actually it was the other way around--the Fantom Lightning was essentially a reworked DC02 with a power nozzle.  Incidentally, both the Lightning and the ReCyclone were around at the same time.

-MH

Thanks MH.

Venson

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

Thanks.  That was about one year after the FUSION was launched at Wal*Mart.  But filing a lawsuit is very common in the USA which is the most litigious society in the world.  Why?  Because we have the most number of lawyers per person.  What was the outcome of the suit?  Would you share here with us?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

This was in an appliance trade magazine:

Terms of the settlement were confidential

HARDSELL wrote:

Hello Hardsell:

Trade magazine?  Gag order on settlement?  No, I don't think so.  You must be confused.  Very public and widely known and talked about on other Forums.  It amounted to a big zip for dyson and HOOVER all around.  BTW, the FUSION is a sourced vacuum.  Made for HOOVER, not by HOOVER. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

What do you mean (above)?        DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

It means that he does not know the results of the settlement.

CarmineD wrote:
DysonInventsBig wrote:
Interesting contrast between these two posts.  From Carmine's post it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine who the implied poster was.  See, as always, "that poster" was right!

DysonInventsBig wrote:

DIB:

The case was dismissed and no jury heard it.  Why?  A change in the patent and copy right laws making it more difficult for the aggrieved parties to prevail and win on copy right and patent infringements in the USA courts.  Nothing happened.  Zip.  Thrown out.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

Hoover’s old business model was, it seems…  If we can’t engineer it (i.e. think outside of the box), then we’ll steal it.  Patents (hard earned inventions) were the issue, not copyrights.        DIB

 

Links:

http://www.appliancemagazine.com/zones/consumer/06_housewares/news.php?article=1073414&zone=6&first=151

 

http://www.manatt.com/Attorneys.aspx?id=1831

Hello DIB:

Thanks for the links and commentary.  Here's my take on the results of the suit based on the information provided and I'm familiar with.

No jury trial, as demanded. 

Settled out of court before arguments given and heard. 

Terms of settlement not disclosed [confidential]. 

In my view, the above is another way of saying both sides got absolutely nothing!  Zip.  And the case for patent infringement by dyson against HOOVER was thrown out. 

If dyson had a case against HOOVER, especially on patent infringement, it would have gone to trial for a jury hearing and a very public award of damages.  IMHO. Why?  That was dyson's previous courses of action in 2 cases involving patent/copyright infringements.  Dyson was awarded pretty hefty sums in those cases and used the money to start and expand its operations.  The cases and awards are very public and widely known in those cases.  Why?  As a deterent for others. 

Not so in the case in question.  It resulted in a no win for dyson.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

DIB:

Thank you for pointing out the distinction for patent and copy right.  I edited my post to include both.

Carmine D.

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.

 

I'd have a lot more respect for these companies if they were not so lawsuit-happy, and learned how to respect the consumer....

And guess who pays for this crap ??     

Why are Dysons so expensive ?? ; IMO, they look like a cheap toy ! But then, most do not have a quality appearance or are over-priced...(Kirby for one)

And I do not care for HardSell's rap against Carmine...I for one do value his knowledge...       

Strangely, my ieSpell is a no go at this site...   

Carmine,

I think Dyson has lots of exciting and potentially money making options at his disposal outside of a lawsuit.  Electrolux gave Dyson a gift.  Dyson could exploit what may be an insincere Electrolux claim.  Dyson should let the public decied if Electrolux has a creditability problem, via free press.  Making money off this (false?, who knows) claim is a better money making position than a (if possible) lawsuit IMO.  The ReCyclone simply proves and reminds us that James is ahead of the antiquated vacuum manufacturer curve (i.e. James and/or his team have the ability to think outside of the box).

.

It is not the answer you were looking for but a lawsuit was last on my list of options, not because it is impossible (which it may or may not be) but because I believe James can get a immediate and long lasting results by using the free press to tell his/the ReCyclone story.        DIB 

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Thanks for your response DIB.  Interesting that your first thoughts go to making money!

Let me give you another simple non-monetary option before proceeeding with yours.  Assume for talking purposes that dyson indeed has a real and defensible case against Electrolux.   [I'm not saying it does, I'm just making a hypothetical case for talking purposes].  

Mr. Dyson and/or his CEO [whoever Mr. D designates] calls his/her equal counterpart at Electrolux and talks to them about it and tells them so.  Electrolux is put on notice officially.  Then give Electrolux the first right to refuse/accept the official notice and take the appropriate action.  How about that option first before all the others?

Carmine D.  

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

 

I was basing my thoughts as if Electrolux willfully made these claims knowing Dyson was there first.  But if Electrolux made an honest mistake then YES pick up the phone.   If after that, Electrolux goes forward and runs big with advertising and profiting from their “first in the world, green machine”, then James needs to protect and preserve his and his employee’s interests, accomplishments and dutifully set the record straight using whatever means possible (free press, first).  The press loves this kind of stuff, especially in the UK.

 

It is reckless for Electrolux not to investigate vacuum cleaner history before making “Worlds First” type claims.  Would you not agree?        DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hi DIB:

Whether I agree/disagree depends on your specificity for completing the "World's First"  claim.  What exactly is the full claim that Electrolux makes that contradicts history and/or has been made before [in this case supposedly by dyson in 1998]?

Carmine D.

earthworm wrote:

Hello earthworm:

Let me give you a big shout out of thanks and appreciation for your intellectual integrity and fortitude.

Carmine D.

earthworm wrote:

Dysons are so expensive partly because they are one of the best.  Price some of the imports from independents.  You will need a mortgage on your home ot buy one.

I only speak from experience.  Carmine speaks with a vengence because Dyson is superior to any vacuum that he ever sold.  If you value his opinion then you should buy one of his recommended vacuums and a Dyson for comparison.  I believe that if you are an honest person you will report back that Dyson is better.

You apparently have not followed Carmine on some of the other forums.  He has always criticized Dyson even when Dyson is not relevent to the topic.  Read all the Dyson reviews by consumers.  90% or more would not buy any other brand.  How many other brands can boast that?

CarmineD wrote:

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

Since Electrolux is in business to make money and lots of it, then it is reasonable to believe, Electrolux believes there is money to be made claiming they’re the worlds first.  Free press alone is huge for the worlds first.  There is no free press for second.  Electrolux needs the attention of free press and to advertise this world’s first claim as so.  Electrolux can “go to town” with their “World first green claim” and use this distinction on their packaging, advertising, etc.  But it only takes one click from a Dyson mouse to blast the media with their Worlds first green machine thereby causing doubt as to Electrolux’s credibility and their supposed sincere answer to a ecological problem.  As well it could absolutely be false advertising in the eye of the Truth in Advertising powers too.  Words are a funny thing in the truth in advertising world.  I do not own a copy of the Truth in advertising handbook and have no idea of the “world first” claim is something that be made into a false advertising complaint.          DIB

 

Perhaps “We’re the world’s only green vacuum currently being produced today” could resolve any potential Dyson issue (if it is an issue with Dyson).

HARDSELL wrote:

Hardsell,

Yes, Carmine does go after Dyson much and often hard.  But that is what makes it fun, his comments give me excuse to dig for Dyson knowledge.  Even Mole, as nasty as he gets and the easy to disprove claims he makes is fun too.        DIB

I'm not sure how valid the Dyson DC02 ReCyclone claim would be. I remember it being detailed in the book by James Dyson, but I don't think it was ever on the market for all that long. TomG has one, I think? It's certainly a collectors item. I think the deal was that they'd collect your old Dyson, shot blast it, then melt down the plastic and remold it. It was then be fitted with a new motor and sold in a reusuable sports bag. Dyson are quite good at the moment - when you order direct from them (in the UK), they offer to collect your old vac and have it recycled. But I doubt they're shipping them back to Malaysia each time!

Electrolux can “go to town” with their “World first green claim”

Hello DIB:

Are you saying, then, that this claim by Electrolux is illegal because dyson made the claim first with the ReCyclone?  Or the claim is illegal because dyson made the first green machine even if dyson did not make the claim World's First green machine?  And/or both?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot.  I'm trying to understand what and why exactly is the supposed legal dispute that you believe dyson may/can have against Electrolux.

Carmine D.

M00seUK wrote:

Hello M00seUK:

Based on the article that Venson posted about the Electrolux Green vacuum and Tom Gasko's post about the ReCyclone, I'm trying to determine the basis for a legal action that dyson would have against Electrolux.  I can't find one.  DIB is uncertain I think.  And you are wondering too. 

The score so far appears to be 3 doubters and 1 for a law suit [Tom Gasko].  Tom certainly hasn't made the case here [to me] that there is a breach by Electrolux worthy of a suit by dyson.  He's insinuated some things.  He's bluffed a few words and terms here and there to try and make some kind of case for a suit.  But lawsuits aren't filed based on insinuations and bluffs.  They're filed based on the law.  He hasn't stated the law.  Just some of his typical pro-dyson opinions and anti-Electrolux opinions.  Makes for entertaining Forum reading.  Not for valid lawsuits.  Especially when Mr. Dyson is paying $10,000-$50,000 an hour for hot shot NY City lawyers with 3 names in 3 piece imported silk suits. 

Carmine D

earthworm wrote:
You must have very limited experience with Dysons and have never owned one (common with Dyson bashers here), because it is far from a "cheap toy".  First of all Dysons are NOT the most expensive vacuum cleaner out there, in fact I'll go out on a limb and say Dysons fit into the "mid-priced" category very nicely.  Have you priced some of the high-end machines from independent-only brands by any chance?  Riccar, Simplicity, and Miele (to name a few) ALL have machines that cost well over $1000, with a lot of that money going to the dealer.  No Dyson costs nearly that much (and on top of that you would REALLY get a deal from an independent Dyson dealer), yet the performance is just as good (if not better) than any of the brands I mentioned above.  Enough said. 

-MH

CarmineD wrote:
Not to interject but the answer should be obvious.  Not only did Dyson produce the machine, they made the claim as well.  Check out the very bottom of the last page in this Dyson DC03 PDF manual.  Quoted directly:  "The re-cycled parts will then go to make new, Dyson Recyclone cleaners - the world's first recycled vacuum cleaner. 

Need I say more?

-MH

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Mole  and Carmine are two of my favorites.  Carmine and I can't agree, however I look forward to meeting him some day.  Mole and I have more in common with cars than vacuums.

This forum was so dulll until they joined in.  If we all agreed on the same thing there would be a lot of lost information.

M00seUK wrote:

Hi Moose,

I believe it does not matter how long James actually had his ReCyclone for sale to be the exclusive (for a period of time) or “worlds first”.  Worlds First is a phrase used very, very much by Electrolux and one must presume it helps sell lots and lots of product and/or helps create a powerful impression in the minds of consumers that Electrolux innovation leader.  There is plenty of room in consumer’s minds for another innovation leader – James Dyson.  Electrolux has many worlds firsts, I say Electrolux is indeed the “worlds first” at recycled vacuums second to Dyson.  Let the one time backyard inventor have his day in the sun and in the history books as the “worlds first” in recycling vacuums (assuming no others pre-date Dyson).        DIB

 

 

Google – Electrolux and “worlds first”

P.S.  Sorry if I come off somewhat intense in support of Mr. Dyson.  I know you like the guy too.

CarmineD wrote:

Hello Carmine,

I was indeed 100% uncertain if Dyson could/should stop Electrolux from profiting from the James Dyson exclusive accomplishment of “worlds first recycled vacuum”.  But after reading some literature from the FTC and NAD, indeed this is an untrue claim Electrolux makes.  Launching a brand new concept and pronouncing it as a “worlds first” is claiming exclusivity (and creativity), which it is neither and thereby is misleading the consumer.  It may or may not be more “green” than the ReCycone but that's irrelevant and that’s not what Electrolux is leading consumers to believe and thereby profiting from.  James Dyson climbed the recycled vacuum cleaner mountain first, not Electrolux.  NAD and the FTC guidelines that I have seen are clear on advertising truthfulness which benefits the consumer.  The Federal Trade Commission has the resolve and power to enforce truthfulness in advertising.  In theory…  Can or should James complain to NAD to try to stop Electrolux from advertising exclusive ownership of worlds first?  Yes.  Will NAD rule against this as a false claim?  Yes.  When is the best time for a lawsuit?  After a NAD ruling against Electrolux and only if Electrolux is in non-compliance with such ruling.  At least this was the path James took to stop Hoover from making the Fusion claim/James’ claim and tag line of No Loss Of Suction.

.

Unlike a patent lawsuit where 2 or more companies battle for the rights to manufacture and profit from widgets, the FTC is the big brother, and friend to the lamb-like consumer.      DIB

Hello DIB:

You raise very good points.  Very cogent arguments.  

Please, tell me which dyson vacuum did dyson claim to be the world's first recycled vacuum:  Was it the DC02 ReCyclone canister [cyclinder for our UK fans] and/or the DC03 ReCyclone upright which Tom Gasko quoted from the User manual?  It appears dyson used the World's First claim for both vacuums?  Tom said in his original post here [the one saying there would be a dyson lawsuit against Electrolux] it was the DC02 canister.  But his follow up post quotes directly from the DC03 Manual.  Apparently, he is confused too just as dyson.  Which do you say it is?   DC02/DC03?

Just because dyson made the claim first that either/both vacuums were recycled, does it have incontrovertible proof, defensible in a court of law, that the dyson vacuums were in fact made from recycled plastic?  This is the point M00seUK makes.  Or just dyson say so that they were?  Does it make a difference: To claim it but not be able to prove it?  In a court of law?

Electrolux can defend its World's First recycled vacuum claim.  It quotes the percentages of recycled plastics to the nearest whole number.  Electrolux takes the claim very seriously.  Even to the point of explaining the reason for the one and only dark "green" color.  Unlike dyson which offered the recycled vacuums in several consumer pleasing colors. 

Carmine D.

Here are links to Dyson’s current recycling program:

http://www.dyson.co.uk/support/weee.asp

http://www.dyson.co.uk/support/delivery.asp

Motorhead wrote:

MH,

Thanks for all the ReCyclone info.  I could not find the ReCyclone mention in the Dyson autobiography.  If you or anyone knows the ReCyclone page, can it be pointed out to me?  Here is a DC01 manual talking of recycling too (at bottom of page).        DIB

http://www.dyson.co.uk/customercare/manuals/uk/dc01_abs_manual_uk.pdf

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

If I recall, these have been posted here before.  It is dyson's mission statement on how it conforms to the new European law [effective July 2007, I believe its called the WEEE Law hence the address] on socially and environmentally responsible disposal of electronic products.  It doesn't address dyson's policy present/past/future to use recycled plastic materials to make new vacuums.  Nor does the WEEE law mandate this.

Which raises another issue for discussion.  What does the dyson DC02/DC03 claim mean:  "The first recycled vacuum?"  Does it mean that the vacuum is made from recycled materials?  Or does it mean that the dyson vacuum is recycled IF the consumer follows the dyson instructions to return for proper disposal/recycling! 

As I mentioned, I think this is the point that M00seUK makes about the dyson claim.  What does the dyson claim mean?  We know what the Electrolux claim "World's First recycled vacuum means."  It is stated in no uncertain terms. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Hello DIB:
 

Here's what I think will transpire:  Mr. Dyson and/or his designee will contact their counterpart at Electrolux and say dyson had the first recycled vacuum.  The Electrolux person will ask what does that dyson claim mean?  And the dyson person, like you and others here, won't be able to intelligently say what the dyson claim means.  Let alone will dyson have the proof to back it up. [10 years ago].  An impasse will result.

Dyson's high powered, high hourly priced, NY lawyers with 3 names and 3 piece suits will file a lawsuit against Electrolux.  In fact, I personally and professionally believe that all the vacuum makers, including Electrolux, hope this is the case.  Three years from now when the opening arguments are presented, the dyson legal team will fall short of the necessary proof to back up its claim:  World's first recycled vacuum.  Electrolux will have 3 years of proof and be represented by a low-paid paralegal that looks like Kali from HSN with Kelly Rippa in toe as the official spokeswoman for Electrolux.  The hearing official, probably a kratchety old male judge, will recommend a mutual settlement to and by both parties.  Terms will be confidential and undisclosed. 

Electrolux will agree to modify its existing claim to the following:  "The World's First Proven Recycled Vacuum."  The dyson attornies will agree to this verbage.  Then they will mail Mr. Dyson an invoice for legal fees for $1 MILLION, possibly more.

All the vacuum manufacturers will have a good laugh [at dyson's expense].

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:
  

I doubt Dyson would care - they don't appear to currently offer a recycled vacuum cleaner. They tried it and for whatever reason couldn't make it work for them.
Of course, feelings should count for nothing in a business. The question would be do they think they could impact a competitor with a claim and would it be a good diversion of their day-to-day.
Standing up for their patents is worthwhile (like the Exectrolux hose claim) - a claim on a recycled vacuum cleaner that they don't directly complete with would be a waste of time. Electrolux could simply drop the "world's first" tag.

M00seUK wrote:

Hi M00seUK:

I tend to agree with you.  1998.  Dyson's timing was bad.  Timing is right now with the July 2007 WEEE law.  And the emphasis on being socially responsible and going green.  Electrolux is capitalizing on that fact.

In business it's not good enough to have a good idea and/or invent a good product.  The timing has to be right for launching the idea/product too in order to make it work and be profitable!

Carmine D.

Dropping the “worlds first” or rewording the tag line as Carmine says still gives Electrolux what it wants and is still a powerful phrase.

.

James does not need expensive suits or deep pockets to get Electrolux from claiming (in the U.S.) that they have the exclusive/“worlds first”.  A complaint to NAD and a check for less than $3000.00 will do just fine.  Dyson presents his facts, Electrolux presents it’s facts and NAD decides what the truth is only so to benefit the consumer.  NAD rules and that’s it.  Or at least this the agreed way all/many manufacturers choose to resolve allegedly false or unsubstantiated advertising claims.  It is cheap, fast and it works.

 

If James ever plans to get back into a ReCycled vacuum business then he may choose to stop/get Electrolux to stop the claim.  I know all this talk if simply parlor room chatter, but were talking of it because “Worlds First” is a big deal in the minds of people.

 

ReCyclone, a money maker?  James has the money, freedom and will to pursue his dreams.  It’s simply a courageous, yet seemly unprofitable exercise if forward thinking.  James like good/great innovators was ahead of his time, history books are full of “ahead of their time” men.         DIB

CarmineD wrote:

Lawyers are leaches whether in  3 piece suits or underwear.

It appears then that only one poster here, the honorable Tom Gasko, Esq., believes a lawsuit will result from the Electrolux claim. 

M00seUK, DIB, Hardsell, and I think dyson will not proceed with a legal court action save an industry arbitrator review and decision [DIB] by the NAD.

So much for the big dustup in the old town tonight.  Great saying Tom.  As I recall the exact same you used on the Forum about the dyson/HOOVER lawsuit.  Biting sense of humor.

Carmine D. 

The above picture is from the DC03 manual.  No mention of the DC03 claiming to be a recycled vacuum.

.

Carmine,

 .

I put out a fleece on this forum on weather or not James was the first with a recycled vacuum.  Thus far no one has responded with a recycled vacuum that pre-dates James’s ReCyclone.  Since many vacuum dealers, collectors and alike enjoy bad-mouthing or sitting on their hands while others do, then it should be a cake-walk and quite pleasurable for anti-Dyson types to be acknowledged as the one to disprove the ReCyclone claim. 

 .

Motorhead did his homework, I posted the pic's related to the ReCyclone, and you’ve talked much against the ReCyclone “world first” claim and have demonstrated nothing concrete, no pictures, no literature, nothing.        DIB

.

P.S.  I'm jumping off this topic until some proof is demonstrated and the ReCyclone shown to be pre-dated by another.

Hello DIB:

You're groping for straws.  Tom Gasko in his post cited the World's First claim with the DC02 ReCyclone, a dyson canister.  Dyson made that claim with the DC02 ReCyclone first.  When asked for proof, Tom Gasko cited the DC03 [a dyson upright] Users Manual Guide.  [When I asked you which was first DC02/DC03, you said it doesn't matter.  First is first].  Well, sorry DIB, it does matter if dyson proceeds against Electrolux. 

The legal term of law that applies here with dyson is estoppel.  Tom Gasko and Dyson can't cite the DC03 Manual as dyson proof.  Estoppel is a legal bar that prevents asserting a claim or fact that is inconsistent with a position previously taken.  i.e: Dyson can't claim the DC03 Upright is the World's First after making the same claim about the DC02 ReCyclone canister.

If dyson proceeds against Electrolux [whether legal/industry review], Electrolux will cite this defense.  Dyson is put in the untenable situation of defending itself against its own claim.  Thereby subjecting itself to the same/similar remedy/retribution it asks against Electrolux. 

I believe vacuum makers want dyson to proceed.  They will be laughing at dyson's expense.

Electrolux did its research and homework much better than dyson.  I did my homework too, better than Tom Gasko.

Dyson DC02 Recyclone Model In Green/Yellow. The Worlds First Recycled Vacuum Cleaner. SEE BELOW FOR THE FULL RANGE OF SPARES ... The Dyson DC03 has a built in. motor protection thermostat to protect .... make new, Dyson Recyclone cleaners – the world’s first recycled vacuum cleaner.

Carmine D.

Is there anything that proves there ever was a DC03 ReCyclone? The DC03 manual above simply says you can phone them to have your old cleaner collected at the end of it's life.

Hello M00seUK:

There is a dyson DC03 ReCyclone upright which bears the same World's First claim as the dyson DC02 ReCyclone [canister].

Carmine D. 

Carmine:  You keep talking about court of law, there is a bigger court – the court of public opinion.  A very simple and easy to understand “side-by-side” Dyson ad campaign demonstrating the 2 vacuums, the 2 claims, the 2 companies and the 2 product launch dates.  Electrolux claiming what is not theirs to claim (that they pre-date all others) has it’s downsides in the minds of public opinion.        DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

I call the court of public opinion "street justice."  Kenneth J took dyson to court for his patent on the vacuum wheel facilitator.  Dyson copied Kenneth J's patent for the DC15 Ball.  Kenneth J lost in a court of law.  

Kenneth J was a engineering student when he patented the vacuum wheel facilitator in 1998.  In 2005 dyson launched the DC15 Ball, which Kenneth J recognized as his invention.  Kenneth J was no match for dyson's hot shot high priced NY lawyers with 3 names and 3 piece suits.  The case was dismissed on a technicality.  

The DC15 is the worse of all dysons according to commentary by many including Consumer Reports.   That's street justice.  Street justice tells me despite Mr. Dyson's persistence to win acclaim with the ball technology for his latest vacuums [DC24/25], these will meet with the same ignominious sales as the DC15. 

I think the court of public opinion counts for something.  That court is hoping that dyson proceeds legally against Electrolux.  

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
You say Dyson copied this invention... in reality, they may or may not have done this.
But if the court has awarded in Dyson's favour, you can't really pass that off that as fact, can you?

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine, your pretty gullible to take the word from someone you do not know (I’m assuming he was unknown to you prior).  What Kenneth J. said here (archives I’ve seen) and what he said in Federal Court under oath are two entirely separate things.   Make no mistake Kenneth and his team of lawyers going after Dyson only 22 days prior to the American launch of the DC15's was tremendous pressure applied to the end of getting money out of Dyson.  Dyson responded immediately (in 6 days) to Kenneth’s lawyers, then Dyson sued for clarification and NOT for revenge or other, Kenneth J. and his team countersued for potent revenues (money) made from the sale/s of the DC15 invention.  I do not like liars; I’m no fan of this so-called inventor.        DIB

M00seUK wrote:

Hello M00seUK:

I didn't say.  Kenneth J said.  In a court of law.  Which ruled against Kenneth J. on a technicality not the patent law. 

BTW, I neglected to mention [for those who don't recall] within 4 months of the DC15 Ball's launch in the USA in 2005, dyson was forced to drop the prices by $100.  From $699 to $599.  Now they're advertised for $499 and sold for even less.  Some may say to Kenneth J that he got street justice, not court justice.  Street justice: The court of public opinion.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

Me, gullible?  No my friend.  I didn't take Tom Gasko's word without researching.  Did you?

I know enough about Kenneth J to say he is not lying in this matter.  The facts and circumstances are on his side.  

Unlike you, I never had courses in mind/heart reading so I can't say what motivated Kenneth J's actions other than he patented the invention before dyson.  Some might say FIRST.  In your court of public opinion, like you said above, that counts for something.

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:

My good man,

I do thank you for the compliment of being able to read minds when in fact I cannot.  This is how I came to my conclusions….  1)  Read the patent and claims 2) Read what he posted on the prior site (that is archived), then I compared what he said to…  3)  What Federal Court documents/complaints (sworn statements) with regard to Dyson v. Kenneth and then the Kenneth v. Dyson countersuit, the countersuit spells out that Kenneth was damaged and therefore wants to be “adequately compensated for damages sustained”.  The Kenneth J. patent filing date of 1996, and seemingly has not made money off his patent outside of potential future moneys by suing Mr. Dyson.  How did you come to your conclusions?

 

Make no mistake, I give the guy credit for the articulation nozzle (assuming he was first to invent this).  He was not close to the DC15 ball mechanism, but was close to inventing the DC18 type ball mechanism.  But without the center barrel shaped/spherical type wheel the widget/vacuum can’t lean/turn nearly as easy as if it was riding on…  well a Dyson barrel shaped/spherical type wheel.  Dyson brought to the market a line of highly steerable, pivotable upright vacuums and he looks to be making much profit from these, despite yours and/or other vacuum dealers and/or enthusiast’s objections.        DIB

 

P.S.  FYI, I very rarely use the “L” word for it is a very strong word indeed.

CarmineD wrote:

Technicality?  No.  If my memory is correct Kenneth spoke of the differences being - his widget had 2 wheels vs. Dyson's single ball wheel.  Kenneth too narrowly defined his widget in his claim (as having 2 wheels only).        DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

My compliments.  You did excellent research and presentation.

I will respond in kind calling upon your words [paraphrased] with Electrolux and dyson. 

One or two [ball wheels/recycled models], first is first!   Dyson  claiming what isn't his.  Kenneth J invented and patented the vacuum wheel ball facilitator as an engineering student over 9 years before the DC15 Ball launched.  First counts for something in the court of public opinion even if it does not matter in a court of law.   The court of public opinion is bigger than the court of law.

I rest my case. 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

Yes, dyson did indeed.  First in 2005 with the DC15 Ball.  Worse of the upright dysons by most here [From $699 to $499 before discounts] .  Then 2007 with the DC18 Slim [$469 to $399 before discounts].  Next worse of the upright dysons based on the latest Consumer Reports ratings in March 2008.  The DC18 is currently discounted on clearance by most big box retailer stores.  Again in 2008 with the DC24/25 ball upright dysons.  [$399 and $499 to ???]. 

I get the distinct impression that dyson admittedly just can't get the ball vacuum wheel technology right.  Too bad about Kenneth J and dyson.  Kenneth J may actually be able to help dyson out.  Manufacturers of household appliances build in a 7 year obsolescence period.  By dyson's own record, he's shooting for a year.  I think the only thing he's shooting is his foot. 

This is street justice and not court justice.  In some cases, perhaps this is one, street justice is better served than court justice.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I wish DYSON would stop destroying the high end vacuum market.

MOLE

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.

CarmineD wrote:
Yeah, they *surely* would have offered 6 years, even if the market leader didn't offer 5!

I don't know, but I'd be of the presumption that the quality of the VAX after sales support wouldn't be a patch on Dyson's.

M00seUK wrote:

Hi M00seUK:

I think most vacuum buyers who shop the big box retail stores for their vacuums don't know and/or care about the difference in service support.  The warranty period is an up front selling feature in their minds and pocket minds.  Much like any other feature intrinsic to the vacuum. 

Carmine D. 

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

I'm getting ready to write my Congressional representatives about this matter.  I'm going to propose an intellectual property rights' tax.  My sense is that it will be an excellent source of revenue.  I'm surprised that it has not been thought of and proposed already.  Now, if I can only figure out a way to get a percentage of the revenues collected from the tax!  Rather than a flag that has flown over the Capitol!  Show me the money!

Carmine D.

Carmine,

It's no wonder that we have such a large trade deficit with the Chinese.  While we tend to pay for their products, they have a bad tendency to steal/copy our software, movies, and any and all intellectual property that they can get their hands on.   The Chinese also make it impossible to sue their companies by setting up enormous hurdles and mazes of government regulations.  I don't know how anyone can call it "free trade" with a straight face. 

Severus wrote:
X's 2!

Can't agree enough. Plus add in near-slave wages our trade policy is a joke to the world. The emergence of third world economies for the benefit of "get rich at any cost" American Corporations is very much to blame for high oil prices.

Speaking of manufacturing jobs going to China and elsewhere.  Check out how much Wal-Mart advertises (until told “no” by NAD) the average American saves by shopping at their store  A $2500 savings comes at an awfully high price!        DIB

 

http://www.nadreview.org/DocView.asp?PageContext=212815050461327408&SessionID=1374466&DocumentID=6709

Carmine, a few points of clarification.

1.  The DC02 was the ONLY vacuum called the ReCyclone, there were NO recycled DC03s.  I don't know where you pulled that from, but perhaps I should type slower so you can understand. 

2.  Tom G. never mentioned once about the Lionel train lawsuit.  I mentioned this when I spoke to him and he said that he did not know anything about it (and could care less).  As I recall he only said there would BE a lawsuit, which there was.  You yourself came up with all the gobbledygook about Lionel. 

3.  If you don't stop calling me by Tom's name, I'm going to start calling you Bertha (or Rotunda, nevermind, that's what I'll call Mole).

-MH

Hello Tom:

Your memory is failing you.  I told you to mind your thinking/memory and not to concern yourself about mine.  Obviously my recall of events and circumstances is much better than yours.

Everyone here knows I'm Carmine D.   Just like they know you to be Tom Gasko.  You can call me anything you like.  With your failing and poor memory, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you forget my name and start calling me by other names too like you are calling Tom Gasko motor head and dualcyclone.  

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Does anyone know what the # 1 # 2 best selling items are at Wal Mart?

CarmineD wrote:

Well at least the slothful can claim something originated from them and not Dyson.        DIB

Here is some more useless knowledge for you to ponder maybe since Vax which is owned by TTI,you know the same company that owns Dirt devil royal,regina,etc.The top end dirt devils carried a 6 year parts and labour oh i used the jolly good chaps version of labor, warranty for many years now,tti said what the heck the dirt devil cruiser is just as much junk as the Vax and Dyson, lets level the playing field out and tell the customers our junk is as good as their junk,except ours is in expensive junk,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Hey Gasko can i call you Dilbert Goldfarb,

sincerely

THE- MOLE

mole wrote:

Hello Mole:

As a fan and daily reader of Scott Adams, you would be impugning Dilbert and overly complimenting Tom Gasko.

Carmine D.

M00seUK wrote:
Thats about the only good thing about the new VAX machines is the 6 year warranty!  One thing people will notice about these machines is how bulky and heavy they are and how many 'fiddley' switches and dials are on them!

mole wrote:

“More useless knowledge”?  Take it easy Sunshine.        DIB

Motorhead wrote:

Hi Motorhead,

.

Thanks.

.

Don’t let Carmine rattle your cage (get you to doubt exactly how James will proceed or the spirit of your position) over what tools James may/may not use to remind competitors what is his, this includes using lawsuits.  Only after a filed lawsuit did Hoover U.S. abide by NAD’s ruling of – Do not use “No Loss of Suction” on their Fusion or Legacy vacuums and advertising that proved to indeed loose suction (after 10.5 oz. of dust).  I like underdogs and David vs. Goliath-like stories.  I put together a sampling of what James goes up against every day of his business life.        DIB

.

Dyson	Electrolux
1)      $1 billion annually 2)      2-3 million products sold annually (approx.) 3)      15 years in  business (Dyson LTD) 4)      1700 employees (approx.) 5)      45 markets	1)      $104 billion annually 2)      40 million products sold annually 3)      80 years in business 4)      56,900 employees 5)      150 markets

http://www.electrolux.com/company_overview.aspx

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

Good info.  Thank you but................You provided the Electrolux source for your data.  How about the dyson source? 

Interesting too that you like the David and Goliath stories and favor the underdog.  How then do you explain your liking for dyson against Kenneth J, an engineering student.  Dyson LTD and the slick NY city lawyers with 3 names and 3 piece suits.  Sounds like you were in Goliath's corner in that fight.  Against David.

I always say: Where people stand oftentimes depends on where they sit.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

This is very comforting to know.  Tom Gasko is locked up where he belongs.   

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
It is also good to know that in Dyson's case the underdog is best regardless of sales.  Look at the # of $50 Orecks sold for almost $800.  Good marketing is better than a great product (for sales and not the consumer).

HARDSELL wrote:

Yes, I'd like to know since you mention it Hardsell.  What doe’s Oreck do... 1) in annual dollar sales 2) in annual vacuums sold 3) number of employees 4) just how old is the basic look of the Oreck 5) and what does the 1,000,000 hotel rooms vacuumed daily convert out to? -  What is the number of (commercial) vacuums used "...that cleans a million hotel rooms a day is now only $199!"   Carmine shoud be able to answer these fairly easy.  Carmine?        DIB

.

< I've seen a 1979 Oreck patent with this exact/near exact look.  But I think this look may be even older than that.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

You gotta love all that technology that Oreck uses.  It is about the same age as Ol Dave.

Oreck patents - Filed in 1979. 1)  http://www.google.com/patents?id=mpc3AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=oreck#PPP1,M1

2)  http://www.google.com/patents?id=59wxAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=oreck

 < Oreck in 5/2008

Hello Guys:

My, my.  How did we go from Electrolux, to dyson to ORECK?  Start an Oreck thread if you want to ask and answer questions about the most recognized man in the vacuum industry and his machines and business.  That is a more appropriate thread than this one.  Then all the ORECK facts will not be buried and hard to find.

But here's a taste for you:  Just focus on the 475-500 Oreck stores nationwide and do the math just for the real estate and ORECK store employees.  Not chinese/malay contractors [like dyson].  Impressive?  More opening every week too.  45 plus years of history in the US vacuum industry.  All vacuums still made in the USA.  $150-$199 for a US made vacuum with a 1-3 year warranty and 45 year history is a patriotic bargain. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

You should know better than anyone about getting off subject.  You add Dyson to every thread, regardless of the topic.  Payback can be hell.

Recognition of a founder and all the other references that you mention do not equal performance nor quality.  That 1- 3 year warranty is the biggest cost associated with an Oreck purchase.  Why no 5 or 6 year warranty?  The only impressive thing about Oreck is how they continue to sell inferior products. 

As for the XL21 warranty.  They must charge about $700 to $750 for that warranty.

Same old HARDSELL and post material.  Nothing new yet? You're boring my man like the vacuums you pitch.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I understand Carmine.  You never have a response when you are bested.

Nothing new certainly applies to Oreck.  I find it very amusing that you once bragged about Hoover's superiority.  They failed, largely due to Dyson.  We never heard about the wonderful Oreck back then.  Since you failed so miserably with Hoover you are now trying to tell us that Oreck is the greatest.

LOL.

Hey Carmine,

I started an Oreck thread and am looking forward to discussions there.

 

I am glad to hear of the many Oreck franchisees and seeing how the franchise concept is good for countless of peoples and the world.  My wife’s grandfather worked directly under the inventor of the franchise concept – Mr. Howard Johnson.  Some history books and t.v. history shows credit him and/or A&W for the original concept but most credit him with the polishing or honing the concept into a money maker for many.  I have never heard of him *bellyaching over others “barrowing” his invention.  Said grandfather co-invented chocolate chip ice cream (while working for Mr. Johnson) for which our family does not receive a dime.  Dyson muscling Kenneth is fiction.  Kenneth was out invented by an ex-furniture designer (I recently learned) and not an engineer as I once thought.          DIB

.

.

*Bellyaching by Kenneth J. and his team of lawyers.

Hello DIB:

But you did not provide your reference source for the dyson info.  Don't have an authoritative source?  Just made up from bits and pieces here and there?  How do we know its reliable?

Carmine D.

HARDSELL:

I know you are reading challenged.  But follow me here.  TTA owns HOOVER, VAX, DIRT DEVIL, ROYAL.  It is the largest maker and seller of vacuums in the USA.  Period, end of story.

ORECK is a niche seller: Lightweights and hotels/motels.  Each is famous in their own right and have a captured loyal market. 

Dyson has slogans and high prices.  A toy with a purpose.  Mediocre at best industry reviews from both sides of the pond.  And that's being generous to dyson.  The signature dyson model, the DC07, is and has been a flop in the USA.  It's being discontinued for failing to perform well on many US carpets, including mine and many others.  It's overriding weakness: a sub par brush roll.  If you invent a vacuum, I don't care how advanced the technology, and put a toy brush on it, it ain't worth $400.  In fact it ain't worth $100.  End of story.  Anyone who can't understand and believe that as a basic truth is blind in love with James Dyson.  And we have a bunch of posters here who are and are proud of it.

You impugn ORECK for being a $199 lightweight 8 pound vacuum.  Compare its brush roll to dyson's DC07 and DC14.  I'd take the $199 ORECK over the $400 DC07/DC14 anyday and in everyway.   And in fact I have and continue to.  Success speaks for itself.  Failure to perform at any price is still failure.

If dyson and dyson fans were so impressed with the DC07 and DC14, they would not be obsolete now after less than 5 years.  The norm for the industry is 7.  Truth is the DC07 and DC14 were obsolete when they were launched in the USA.  Why?  Brush roll.  The worse in the industry bar none.  James Dyson is lucky as heck to have sold as many as he did before the using vacuum public realized the vacuum is nothing more than an overpriced toy with a purpose.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Give us something that we haven't heard about vacuums 1000 times from you.  Oreck is popular in hotels only because it is light weight.  Certainly not for cleaning ability.

Consumers ahve said more positive things about Dyson than any other brand that I have read about.  Old timers will likely stick to old brands.  The younger generations are more savy about technology.  More people drive Chrysler, Ford and Chevy than Porsche, BMW, Mercedes and Lexus.  Which is best?

We have had prior discusions on this but I will ask again.  If the Dyson performed better than the Oreck for me and vice versa for you what makes your opion better.  The name Carmine means nothing to me.  You really shou;ld upgrade that builder grade carpet.  If Dyson is not worth $400 the XL21 is certainly not worth $600.  End of story.

Success in my home speaks louder than your BS.

Hello HARDSELL:

I still have and use my Oreck as a daily vacuum.  And bought 4 more.  What did you do with the DC07 that you rant and rave about? 

Let's stick to Electrolux here and take the Oreck discussion to the ORECK thread.  And ditch all the other non-sense about cars and TV's which is irrelevant to readers and posters here.  They belong on another site. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Excuse me!?

http://www.abbysguide.com/vacuum/discussions/26766-0-1.html

Actually, the two of you going back and forth is irrelevant to the readers and posters here.

Mike W.(Moderator)

CarmineD wrote:

Have you ever considered taking your own advice?

Mike_W wrote:

Mike, this forum was almost dead until Carmine joined in.  Why not just set a rule that we all have to agree.  That should make interesting reading.

BTW, how many posters do we have here?  Maybe 10.

HARDSELL wrote:

Very true!  You helped make things interesting too Hardsell.        DIB

Mike_W wrote:

Hello Mike the Moderator:

I'm trying to reform, give me a break! 

This Site here should inform, entertain and inspire.  If you feel otherwise, let me know privately and we'll work out a mutually agreeable compromise. 

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

Hello HARDSELL:

Most people thought I was, until I started posting here [dead that is].

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I feared the same Carmine.  What would I do without my favorite moron.

 

HARDSELL wrote:

Complete your thought and sentence:  What would I do without my favorite moron.... to keep me straight.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Thanks DIB.  I was not passing the blame to Carmine as it appeared.  I am as or more guilty of trying to stimulate a conversation.

HARDSELL wrote:
I know.