Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

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,

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