Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Dyson is in the news frequently and so a dedicated thread.

.

Hiya DIB:

The high court of patents [see M00seUK's link] ruled in dyson's favor over Samsung but was impressed enough by a Sanyo product predating dyson's cyclone bagless art form, and/or a part[s] thereof, to give Sanyo an honorable mention.  Generally DIB, when a court here in the USA, not sure elsewhere, includes this verbage in a ruling/decision, it is a legal sanction/notice to the unknowing patent holder, that it may want to investigate/file legal action.  But, you being very smart, probably know this already, and hence the reason you asked me the question.  Since I am in no way familiar with the Sanyo patent/product save what M00seUK posted, I can't demo the worthiness of Sanyo's patent infringement claim/product against dyson.  I can only go by what the high court testified on Sanyo's behalf.  But I'd bet someone at Sanyo can.  Ironic isn't it?  Sanyo [Japanese] may become a silent future partner of James, whether he likes it or not. 

Carmine D. 

Hey Carmine,

Well, I could not resist...  Dyson freely offers up and mentions the Sanyo (patented in Japan only) and you joke of Dyson owing Sanyo.  I jokingly offer up that the Sanyo devise may be commercially worthless and this is why it was not brought to market (assumed).  Dyson did bring to market an unbelievably great consumer product, and in my opinion it was the Fantom upright, only because of the shroud element (which completed the entire consumer friendly filter w/storage of dust & debris package).  Dyson may or may not been first at cyclonic’s, although he and his team have been recorded (patents) as the worlds first with a complete consumer friendly package.  “Dyson elements” have been adopted at a high rate of speed (clear bin) and in the last few years many medium and giant corporations have enjoyed profits when they smartly transitioned to and fully adopted (i.e. reversed engineered) the entire “Dyson consumer friendly filtering w/storage of dust & debris package.”

If any corporation owes money (royalties) to anybody, it is Dyson who is owed big time.  Competing corporations profit from Dyson and his teams hard work and not Sanyo’s.

You’re smart too, albeit for the wrong side.  :)


DIB

Hello DIB:

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]. 

Based on the court's ruling now in favor of dyson [a shallow victory], Sanyo can sue dyson and Samsung too.  Tho, this would be absolutely futile WRT a Samsung suit.  And, more importantly, as I've said, violates the inherent loyalty each company [Samsung and Sanyo] has to each other due to their common heritage.  

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. 

Carmine D.

M00seUK wrote:
I very much appreciate you linking this doc here!!

DIB

CarmineD wrote:

Hello M00seUK:

I thank you for the link too!  I read it and the other posts here about the matter.  I talked with some legal experts.  And I talked also with several patent lawyers who work for the PO in Washington, DC.  I suspect having just been adjudicated in December 2008, the fall out from the subject case will have repercussions that take time to be sorted out.   We'll have to wait and see how it goes and what happens.  To think this is the end of it is rather naive from both a business and legal perspective.  Japanese are relentless.  Like you said we have different opinions on the matter.  That's why there are courts with judges who decide on the legality of such matters.

Carmine D. 

The existence of prior art and infringing the claims of prior art are distinct and separate matters.  It must be assumed Sanyo, nor individuals nor corporations attacked successfully any of Dyson’s [G-Force] Japanese patent/s.  Dyson’s licensee freely manufactured, advertised and sold $20m worth of Dyson technologies in a highly competitive market... Japan.

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hi DIB:

Assuming is risky business because one doesn't know the facts.  Assuming takes the facts out of context which leads to a pretext.  A pretext conceals the truth. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

I simply followed your lead...  assuming is something you've ran with here.   If assumptions were removed from these many posts, I'd say at minimum, 40%-50% of your posting would have to go.  Take it easy and get off the Holier-Than-Thou soap box, we let you speak much and back up little.


DIB

Hello DIB:

As usual your conclusion is logically inconsistent.  You impugn me but follow my lead.  Thank you.  Words of advice:  Before you complain about the splinter in my eye, remove the log in yours! 

Carmine D.