Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

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

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.

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

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.

DIB:

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

Carmine D.

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..

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.

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

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.

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.