Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20090133214/description.html

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=15%2F$.CCLS.&OS=CCL/15/$&RS=CCL/15/$

<BR> Trebor wrote: <BR><BR>I don't own a Rainbow - but I suspect the water bath solves the problem of the stinky pet hair exhaust that is common in bagged and bagless vacuums. It's amazing to me that Rainbow sells as well as it does with the $2200 price tag. User reviews on sites like epinions and consumerreports.org tend to be very positive. I suspect that Dyson got the idea of displaying the dirt collected from vacuums like the Rainbow. It was a case of sloppy seconds for the Dyson.<BR><BR>In recent years, there have been some cheap knockoffs of water filtration vacuums with no power nozzle. The Rainbow knockoffs tend to also be high dollar niche brands (e.g. Hyla, Delphin, ...). I guess Dustmite belittles the Rainbow because it was the first, and Dyson got Rainbow's sloppy seconds/thirds... <BR><BR><BR><BR>

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DIB:

You're talking from two sides of your mouth.  On one hand you want a monopoly on dyson's inventions and on the other you berate vacuum makers for their lack of new technologies.  Well, DIB you can't have it both ways.  Monopolies, for the sake of protecting creators' technologies, are not efficient for a market based, consumer driven economy.  Perhaps Sir James needs to file his copy rights and sell his products in communist/ government controlled countries.

Carmine D.

Severus,

You are right about the Rainbow water bath eliminating the odor from per hair, PROVIDED the machine is used and cared for properly.
If left set for two days with water in the basin, it smells like a sewer!  But it does clean extremely well.

At present there are several Rainbow competitors: Hyla, Pro Aqua, Blue Ocean, Delphin, Turmix, Robot.  I tried one of the early Hylas, liked it, but the P/N was not suited for American carpets. Saw the Delphin before they finally decided to sell the electric P/N instead of that silly little battery operated thing.  My D4 is running great, think I'll just keep it.

Trebor

DysonInventsBig wrote:
CarmineD wrote:
Copy rights?  Communist?  You’re incoherent...are you drinkin?  You've never been able to get your head around patents and their purpose. - So why start now?

FYI - Inventions are patented not copyrighted.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

Same same my friend.  Impress us by debating technological innovations, your mantra, and their legal protections on the industry.  Not by word use and definition.    

Patent and copyright protections are not just a legal right granted the creator.  They are economic rights of the market place and consumers.  Or, do you prefer that they be used to control consumers rather than satisfy them?  The latter is called a monopoly.  And not the board game.  You can't have product innovation with innovative technologies in a monopoly.  Nor can it be had in a government controlled market system, which appears to be your preference when your fave inventor is the patent creator.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Economic Rights?  Those are the words of lazy men and men who are supportive to knock-off manufacturers,  No free ride here Carmine and no 'Free Handout Rights' either.

When you speak incoherently and continually speak about a topic you've never understood - one wonders if it’s booze talking.

Why not take your theory of 'Economic/Free Handout Rights' over to Coca Cola and demand your rights - to their formulas.

I hate slothfulness and hate it more when the diligent and the good are expected and told to (and often do) carry the lazy?


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB, you're dithering again not debating.  Yes, economic rights are inalienable rights granted to consumers in a free, market based, consumer driven economy.  Unlike legal rights which are government given in a free market economy for patent/copyright protections and are time specific.  Read: Expire.  The purpose of protections is to give the invention creators their just rewards.  Not to grant them a monopoly for life.   Of course, you support the billionaire's rights over the consumer rights in the market place.  Control the consumer, don't satisfy them.  All the while impugning vacuum makers for lack of innovation.   Monopolies preempt innovation, my friend.  But, then again, small minded inventors and their supporters prefer to litigate rather than innovate. 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
CarmineD wrote:
Cameron, It’s not [Patent] monopolies that preempt innovation.  It's stupidity and no-talent that prevents innovation.   Putting pen-to-paper-napkin and a 2nd grade education is all it takes to lock-up/prove originality and it’s this pen-to-paper-napkin that proves original art if challenged in court.  Do your favorite vacuum manufacturers have access to these tools and education?

DIB

P.S.  Did you enjoy your time at Disneyland?  My buddy was a WDI (Imagineer), I knew about Roger Rabbit and Tower of Terror two years before they broke ground.  Of course they engineered, prototyped and tested in secret so to prevent the less talented and less imaginative competitors from taking what's not theirs.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

US copyright/patent lawyers and savvy business people with a grasp of economics would vehemently dispute you/this.  Arguing in the reverse.  Hence, the reasons that the legal protections for innovators in the USA have been consistently diminished.  Apparently, your knowledge/association with theme park rides doesn't overlap into the business/common sense world of free markets.  

Do tell me dyson DiB, if the info on the Tower of Terror is/was TOP SECRET, how is it that you/others knew about it?  The answer is simple.  You can't legislate peoples' behaviors with laws.  Just as you can't restrict the free market system with overly expansive patent/copyright protections.  Except of course in a monopolistic economy where the government controls the consumers.  Your preference when Sir James innovations are on the line.

Carmine D.

DIB,

Please, this is a non-issue. The mfg of mass market vacuums. TTI, Bissell, et al, ARE NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS.  They legitimately can use Dyson's EXPIRED patents. A US Patent is 17 years, how long do you think it should be?  For crying out loud, the man is on to other ideas, which again are patented for 17 years.  The DC 02 and 02 never were marketed in the US because the multi-cyclonic technology was already in production . Dyson made his own inventions obsolete. Good for him.  But what he did NOT do was create a vacuum that the lower half of the market wanted to buy.  Not everyone thinks the Dysons are pretty. Dyson was so full of himself he initially REFUSED to develop a brush roll suitable for American w2w carpet.  He finally got around to it, but without the pressure of the imitators it seems highly unlikely that the brush roll design of the Dysons would have advanced.  Patent protections do work. Hoover sued Bissell and won over the first upright carpet cleaner. Bissell paid Hoover a royalty on every upright carpet cleaner they sold until Hoover's patent expired.

Every product has had its imitators.  If the originator is lazy, his imitators will surpass her/him, because regardless of what you think, there is creativity in seeing a different configuration of a device or application of a principle. Remember, Dyson did NOT invent the principle of cyclonic separation, he merely thought of applying it to vacuum cleaners.  Cyclonic separation is the use of centrifugal force to separate materials of different densities. It has been in use for a more than a century in laboratories, and in sawmills.   If anything, the imitators you disparage so much have to work harder, because they have to compete against each other for sales.  They have to make a product user friendly, visually attractive, and cost effective, that will last long enough, but not too long, to continuously fuel sales.  Over 1/2 of all the roughly 20 million vacs sold per year in the US are at or below a 100.00 price point.  Not Dysons customers at all.  So even with competing for a share of the upper 1/3 of the market, selling 8K cleaners PER DAY in the US, in a recession, Dyson ain't doin' too shabby.  What are you complaining about?  Anytime a competitor adapts an expired Dyson patent,  Dyson can copy it/improve on it with impunity. FREE ideas here.  And why isn't Dyson's wondrous engineering staff taking apart every competitors model to see what might be worth using?  If they are not they should be.

Have you ever done anything creative, like art, music, writing, DIB?  Don't you realize the works of art inspire others to produce more art?  People do arrangements of a piece of music, and there are countless variations.  Be glad inventions are not like fashion design.  Do you know that there is NO protection for originality for designers, NONE? The PATTERN companies have copyright protection insofar as using a pattern directly to mass produce garments.  Technically, it is illegal for even ONE garment to be produced for profit, but the big concern is the mass production. But all anyone would have to do is trace the pattern onto different paper and tweak it, and it would be VERY difficult to prove fraud.  That's why the big money is in copyrighted trademarks, like the Nike swoosh, and names like Michael Graves.  It would have to be a really big case of fraud, and an open and shut case, with plenty of damages to be had for a pattern company to sue for copyright infringement. They just keep cranking out patterns and collecting royalties, just like Dyson US cranks out 8K cleaners a day, and Mr. Dyson collects his royalties on every single one.

Dyson is and always will be the first dry cyclonic separation vacuum cleaner with the clear dust bin.  His place in history is secure. That's what makes it special, the clear container.  That's what Dyson should have patented, in addition to everything else, the clear container.  That's what sells ANY bagless cleaner.  Who would care about no loss of suction if the dirt were in an opaque container?

Can we move on now?

Trebor