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

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.