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

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.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

But Hoover/Candy do not use the dual cyclone set-up. They use a single cyclone and pleated filters.

Hoover/Candy got its knuckles rapped over the 'Triple Vortex', which was shown to be a variation of the dual cyclone set-up, with an involute vortex separator. Hoover was thus banned from using the technology for an extra year beyond when the other manufacturers could use it.

However, Hoover had already moved onto the single cyclone + pleated filter arrangement, as used in the 'Vortex Power', 'Hurricane', 'Whirlwind', and 'Dust Manager', and 'The One'.

Trilobite wrote:

Trilobite,

Yes, your right!  One can get a little lost keeping up with - who stole Dyson intellectual property, who’s copying Dyson intellectual property before its patent/s expired, who’s copying Dyson’s expired intellectual property, who helped Hoover U.S successfully keep and use Dyson’s un-expired intellectual property in the Hoover v. Dyson countersuit.  It’s Vax, and not Hoover Candy who I was thinking of that is using expired Dyson intellectual property and not Hoover Candy.  Thanks.        DIB

.

P.S.  Talk about lazy.... Vax even stole James’ tag he created and/or made famous. - “No Loss of Suction”. 

mole wrote:

Hello Mole et al:

The local Fry's Electronics advertised new DC07 All Carpets on clearance/closeout for $299 for Memorial Day. 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

But Vax trumped dyson by upping its warranty [parts and labor] on new vacuums to 6 years!

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Yeah, they *surely* would have offered 6 years, even if the market leader didn't offer 5!

I don't know, but I'd be of the presumption that the quality of the VAX after sales support wouldn't be a patch on Dyson's.

M00seUK wrote:

Hi M00seUK:

I think most vacuum buyers who shop the big box retail stores for their vacuums don't know and/or care about the difference in service support.  The warranty period is an up front selling feature in their minds and pocket minds.  Much like any other feature intrinsic to the vacuum. 

Carmine D. 

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

I'm getting ready to write my Congressional representatives about this matter.  I'm going to propose an intellectual property rights' tax.  My sense is that it will be an excellent source of revenue.  I'm surprised that it has not been thought of and proposed already.  Now, if I can only figure out a way to get a percentage of the revenues collected from the tax!  Rather than a flag that has flown over the Capitol!  Show me the money!

Carmine D.