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:

Technicality?  No.  If my memory is correct Kenneth spoke of the differences being - his widget had 2 wheels vs. Dyson's single ball wheel.  Kenneth too narrowly defined his widget in his claim (as having 2 wheels only).        DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

My compliments.  You did excellent research and presentation.

I will respond in kind calling upon your words [paraphrased] with Electrolux and dyson. 

One or two [ball wheels/recycled models], first is first!   Dyson  claiming what isn't his.  Kenneth J invented and patented the vacuum wheel ball facilitator as an engineering student over 9 years before the DC15 Ball launched.  First counts for something in the court of public opinion even if it does not matter in a court of law.   The court of public opinion is bigger than the court of law.

I rest my case. 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

Yes, dyson did indeed.  First in 2005 with the DC15 Ball.  Worse of the upright dysons by most here [From $699 to $499 before discounts] .  Then 2007 with the DC18 Slim [$469 to $399 before discounts].  Next worse of the upright dysons based on the latest Consumer Reports ratings in March 2008.  The DC18 is currently discounted on clearance by most big box retailer stores.  Again in 2008 with the DC24/25 ball upright dysons.  [$399 and $499 to ???]. 

I get the distinct impression that dyson admittedly just can't get the ball vacuum wheel technology right.  Too bad about Kenneth J and dyson.  Kenneth J may actually be able to help dyson out.  Manufacturers of household appliances build in a 7 year obsolescence period.  By dyson's own record, he's shooting for a year.  I think the only thing he's shooting is his foot. 

This is street justice and not court justice.  In some cases, perhaps this is one, street justice is better served than court justice.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I wish DYSON would stop destroying the high end vacuum market.

MOLE

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine, there are some differences…

Kenneth J. (an engineering student), in his patent and claims stated he invented a steerable upright.

.

Stephen Benjamin Courtney, an engineering graduate (assumed), in his patent and claims stated and suppored by proof, that he invented a steerable upright.

.

I see nothing in the K.J. patent that makes me believe it could steer or steer easily.        DIB

CarmineD wrote:

Hey Carmine,

I’m going to ask not to be used as a reference (although I did say a lawsuit was plausible) on any future pie throwing posts.  FYI, I happen to like your challenges and I appreciate what Motorhead contributes here, especially Dyson.  Thanks.

 

The reason we saw only 1 manufacturer knock off Dyson LTD’s innovations is due to James Dyson’s resolve and using the courts (lawsuits) to define/remind others what belongs to him.  The courts and news reports punished Hoover Candy terribly over them stealing James’s intellectual property. – This sent a message loud and clear to the vacuum manufacturing industry.  Only after the Dual Cyclone patents expired did Hoover Candy, and Bissell copy James’ Dual Cyclone.  Hoover U.S. gambled on producing a vacuum using near expired Dyson Dual Cyclone patents, which may or may not have been money up or not much money up for them.  I think Hoover/Mayag lost on this lazy gamble in the short and long term.  Why?  Great ideas come from outside inventors, not just employed engineers.  What outside inventor will be stupid enough to trust a willful thief?        DIB

Hi DIB,

Thanks for the patent clarification and proving that (once again) the Kenneth J. Weger patent has virtually no relevance on this thread (or concerning Dyson for that matter; two completely different machines).  I can see where the main body of the machine articulates, however, it does not appear that the nozzle can be easily steered as on the Dyson patent.  It's easy to tell why this lawsuit was thrown out; Dyson did not copy the patent but instead took the basic design and improved on it like they have done many times.  As for the name of his device, the "Ball Wheel Facilitator", I believe that is misleading because the term "ball wheel" implies that it is a single ball wheel, when it is instead two convex wheels that move with the articulated body of the cleaner.  Like you said, I do not see how this could be steered easily unless the nozzle floated somehow (since the nozzle is obviously not on a pivot itself), and even then I have to wonder how effective this steering mechanism would be.   Since Kenneth J. didn't actually produce a cleaner, we will have to leave it up to our own opinions.

As far as the Electrolux/Dyson issue with the recycled cleaner, do I predict it will be a huge blowup?  No, but something *will* happen eventually, most likely Electrolux removing their "world's first recycled vacuum cleaner" claim with a minimum of fanfare.

-MH (too far South to be my friend Tom G. lest you forget Carmine )

Hello DIB:

I thought for sure you would cite Mr. Dyson's use of the ball for the wheel barrow in 1974 as proof that the ball wheel was his long before Kenneth J.  While not relevant in a court of law, it would carry weight here for your argument.   Here is some reference material excerpted for you/others to enjoy:

Ballbarrow

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

I don't usually.  This was a rare and one time occasion here.  The purpose, which it served, was to tone down Tom Gasko's perverted perspective which is always to cry lawsuit whenever he perceives dyson is wronged.  

I note from his most recent post that it worked.  He's revised his original position.

Carmine D.

Motorhead wrote:

Hello Tom:

My thinking and memory are working fine and are no concern of yours.  You'd be better served to be concerned here with your own.

Carmine D.