Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

How well I know the resistance manufacturers have to any input from the outside, from design to advertising.

It has expired, but there is a patent with my name on it. I can look up the number and post it if you are interested. (This was pre-Reagan when it was possible to get a patent for under 1,000 dollars. )Reagan increased the cost out of the range of the average working schmuck, and so most patents are by engineers working for multi-nationals. The easiest way to aquire a US patent now is to file overseas and get it by reciprocity.

In addition to the above, I designed a tube/wand assembly that would essentialy give OBT convenience to power nozzle canisters, so a crumb, a corner, a cobweb could be whisked out 'on the fly 'without a disconnect at all. Rexair looked at it because the wives of several RGD's who saw it raved about it (one said it was the best invention since the vibrator! I found out later she actually meant the power nozzle) No dice, because it was from the outside. James Berkeley, an engineer at Electrolux was working on something similar, when I showed him my concept, he liked it better. James McCain, the chief of operations at the time, had me flown in to address his engineering team, the ONLY person in 80 years ever accorded that particular distinction. Three days of presentations, 8hrs a day. There was a lot to talk about!  Mr.McCain wanted so badly to bring innovative product to the market place and see Electrolux recapture and exceed its glory days of over 600 branches in the US alone.

There was to have been a field product development team, headed by yours truly. But Joe Urso sold us all down the river, including the veterans who trusted him with their 401Ks accrued from the days of Lux as a division of Consolidated Foods (Sara Lee). Most of them have died off by now, and there was talk of some widows getting up a class action lawsuit, but I never heard anything more about it. If there is a hell, Joe P. Urso deserves the hotseat at the left hand of Beelzubub himself. He destroyed an American icon for nothing more than senseless greed, but I digress.

I attempted once more to sell my concept of the OBT instant on tool wand to MD mfg. and was told that people spending 1500.00 or more for a vac system with sweep inlets would not spend an additional 100 to 150.00 to increase the convenience of using the system for instant spot cleaning with no disconnect of the wand, or even having to stand it up vertically. The problem is that most engineers who design products used primarily by women are-MEN who just don't understand the variety and complexity of routine monotonous tasks the average woman, employed or not, performs daily as her lot in life. It's why they multi-task better than we do, guys! It's the estrogen factor, get over it. Any married guys, ask your wife about the validity of my last statement.

Even Sanyo gets an honorable mention from the high court, as excerpted:

"Nevertheless, in recent years there has been an increased interest in cyclones as a result of their widespread use in domestic vacuum cleaners. This use was pioneered by Sir James Dyson (see Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd [2001] RPC 26 at [12]-[17] and [44]), although it turns out that one of the items of prior art in the present case (Sanyo, which was not cited in that case) pre-dates his work.

Wonder if Sanyo will sue dyson now over patent infringement?   Wouldn't that be ironic.

Carmine D.

Carmine D.

http://alpha.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2009/55.html

...for the recent case notes of the Dyson Technology v Samsung Gwangju Electronics.

Samsung cited the Sanyo patent to show dyson was not the first as it claims and therefore not entitled to claim the exclusive patent right.  Samsung's argument is that Samsung copied Sanyo, not dyson.  But Sanyo didn't sue.  Court didn't accept Samsung's view and ruled in dyson's favor.  This is understandable because had the court ruled in Samsung's favor, Sanyo then would have been precluded from suing dyson and/or Samsung in the future [the rule of law applicable here is called precedent]. 

Where does it say anything of Samsung citing the Sanyo parent? From the notes :-

Dyson alleges that the (Samsung) Patents are invalid on the grounds of lack of novelty or lack of inventive step over the following items of prior art:

    i) United States Patent No. 6,238,451 ("Conrad");
    ii) United States Patent No. 5,129,124 ("Gamou");
    iii) Korean Patent Application No. KR 10-2001-0018947A ("LG");
    iv) Japanese Utility Model No. 52-014775 ("Sanyo"); and
    v) Dyson's DC07 and DC08 vacuum cleaners.

Based on the court decision, Sanyo can sue dyson now because the court ruled in dyson's favor against Samsung [for copy right infringement].  If successful, Sanyo stands to receive past and future royalties on all dyson sales world wide.  Ironic?  Dyson won the court battle against Samsung, but it stands to lose against Sanyo in the future.  If and when Sanyo proceeds with legal action.  The question is whether there is a statute of limitations which precludes Sanyo from legal action against dyson.  I suspect Sanyo is researching the legality now and depending on the results will proceed against dyson in the future. 

The Sanyo invention is dated from 1977. I don't know conclusively, but I'd be surprised if Sanyo can take action on patents that have now expired. This patent *could* however have  changed the outcome if it had been put forward in the Dyson v Hoover case of 2000. I doubt the Dyson brief would have drawn attention to the (Sanyo) patent if it would have represented anything more than prior art.