Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

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

.

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.

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

The number one reason I come here is to hear you spread Dyson falsehoods.  Some I take on as a challenge.  You have made my Dyson game better and in the process I am reminded (by way of research) what an antiquated appliance the vacuum cleaner was until Dyson.

Dyson interviewed in Readers Digest (Feb, 2009), in it he says he made under $1b last year.  Does this make you happy?


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hi DIB:

Ah....for you, it's a game.  Too bad.  For me, it's a vocation.  One that makes me very happy.  Thanks for asking.

Carmine D.