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

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.