Vacuum Cleaners Discussions |
|
Venson
Joined: Jul 23, 2007
Points: 1900
![]()
|
 |
Electrolux -- First Quarter 2008 . . .
Original Message Apr 29, 2008 10:31 am |
|
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 |
HARDSELL
Joined: Aug 22, 2007
Points: 1293
![]()
|
 |
Re: Electrolux -- First Quarter 2008 . . .
Reply #27 May 18, 2008 9:08 am |
|
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. This was in an appliance trade magazine:
Terms of the settlement were confidential
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Electrolux -- First Quarter 2008 . . .
Reply #28 May 18, 2008 4:17 pm |
|
This was in an appliance trade magazine:
Terms of the settlement were confidential
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.
This message was modified May 18, 2008 by CarmineD
|
DysonInventsBig
Location: USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 1454
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Electrolux -- First Quarter 2008 . . .
Reply #29 May 18, 2008 5:06 pm |
|
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.
What do you mean (above)? DIB
|
Motorhead
Joined: Nov 2, 2007
Points: 409
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Electrolux -- First Quarter 2008 . . .
Reply #31 May 18, 2008 6:18 pm |
|
I believe the exact words of the poster were: "A big legal action by dyson all wrapped up in a big red bow." Nothing ever happened over the matter despite repeated mention by the poster.
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 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! 
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Electrolux -- First Quarter 2008 . . .
Reply #32 May 18, 2008 6:53 pm |
|
What do you mean (above)? DIB
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.
This message was modified May 18, 2008 by CarmineD
|
DysonInventsBig
Location: USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 1454
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Electrolux -- First Quarter 2008 . . .
Reply #33 May 18, 2008 7:14 pm |
|
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Electrolux -- First Quarter 2008 . . .
Reply #34 May 18, 2008 7:37 pm |
|
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.
This message was modified May 18, 2008 by CarmineD
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Electrolux -- First Quarter 2008 . . .
Reply #35 May 18, 2008 8:01 pm |
|
DIB: The case was dismissed and no jury heard it. Why? A change in the 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.
DIB:
Thank you for pointing out the distinction for patent and copy right. I edited my post to include both. Carmine D.
|
HARDSELL
Joined: Aug 22, 2007
Points: 1293
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Electrolux -- First Quarter 2008 . . .
Reply #36 May 18, 2008 8:05 pm |
|
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. Now you are admitting that the above is incorrect. As I said : Terms of the settlement were confidential 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 recommended. Settled out of court before closing 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.
Your earlier view was that I was confused and that everyone knew the answer. Your view as to both sides getting nothing is worthless..
|
|
|
