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/$

Trebor wrote:

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello dyson DiB:

Now its my turn to teach you a lesson in words and definitions.  When you do something for 55 plus years that you love [and are good at], it's not called a job, it's called a vocation.

Especially when you're your own boss and don't have to cotton up to others [read kiss butt].

Carmine D.

Trebor wrote: DIB,

Please, this is a non-issue. The mfg of mass market vacuums. TTI, Bissell, et al, ARE NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS.  DIB reply: I know. They legitimately can use Dyson's EXPIRED patents.  DIB reply: I know.  A  US Patent is 17 years, how long do you think it should be?  DIB reply: It's 20 years not 17.    DIB reply: 20 is fine (but not certain).    For crying out loud, the man is on to other ideas, which again are patented for 17 years.    DIB reply: Well, since you've misunderstood my other posts, I can see why your way off base and confused here too.  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.   DIB reply: Hmmm, I bet his dual cyclone patents expiring around 2005 had some influence too.  Good for him.  But what he did NOT do was create a vacuum that the lower half of the market wanted to buy.    DIB reply: So what, people being priced out is part of everyday life--so what else is knew. new   Not everyone thinks the Dysons are pretty.  DIB reply: So?   Dyson was so full of himself he initially REFUSED to develop a brush roll suitable for American w2w carpet.    DIB reply: Full of himself?  Can you point to an interview or an article that demonstrates this?  Or do you just like hearing yourself saying this?    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.    DIB reply: You're clueless, Dyson does not hold a single patent on brushroll design.  Most brush rolls in most of the worlds vacuums are in the public domain inventions.  I never said he did. But, if Dyson had really done his homework the initial brush roll never would have been marketed In the US. 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    DIB reply: I like hearig of Bissell paying out.  After the royalty, did Bissell still make a profit? Apparently, they continued to introduce new upright models of steamers all through the patent life.

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.   DIB reply: Inventors become lazy, but thankfully the knock-offs are there to pick up where the lazy inventors left off?  That's funny, it sounds like Carmine logic. It's human nature to become complacent. Aesop knew this, remember the Tortise and the Hare?  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.     DIB reply: Hind site is 20/20.  And bad-mouthing of Dyson types always state this.  Not hindsight, not bad mouthing, statement of fact. So if it's a matter of "merely" "applying" an old "principle" in a new way then why are you here wasting your time and not pouring over expired patents (if I had a manufacturing company, I would, believe me, and anything usable, adaptable,  and marketable would be used, along with lab and marketing research. and merely applying old principles in a new way and become rich and change life as we know it?  No one said Dysons application was not useful, inspired, and profitable  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.    DIB reply: What a bunch of garbage!  When Bissell and TTI use expired Dyson patents and enjoy the free plublicity (Dyson spending up to $50m in advertising.) it's equivalent to winning the lottery.   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?   DIB reply: You sound like Obama...take money from those who have the guts to make things happen and give the money to those (mostly) who refuse to make things happen.   What do you want?  Manufacturers to leave expired patents lie fallow until a 'decent' interval has passed?  We have already established that the manufacturers are not breaking any laws. What do you want? 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.    DIB reply: Please!!! Lets see these wondrous dual cyclone improvements that the knock-offs have though up all by their lonesome. The patent archives are FULL of designs and inventions which were never manufactured because they were ahead of their time, or not feasible for production given available materials and prevailing methods of the day. And if Dyson were really smart he never would have abandoned the Dual Cyclone totally. Keeping a few models around at the 150.00 to 200.00 price point while TTI and the rest were just getting their feet wet in the technology would have insured even greater sales for Dyson. Free for the taking now, just like ANY expired patent. Dyson allowed the momentum to pass.

Have you ever done anything creative, like art, music, writing, DIB?    DIB reply: I've dabbled.  Don't you realize the works of art inspire others to produce more art?    DIB reply: Inspiring art and copyright infringement are separate issues. There IS NO infringement. Infringement is a crime, punishable by law after conviction in a court of law, a process James Dyson is familiar with. 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.  DIB reply: Royalties?  Again, you do not know this subject.  Royalties are payments paid to inventors for the rights of usage.  Sir James is getting paid off his manufactured goods. You are right, my mistake

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.     DIB reply: So called bagless w/ cartridge filters are clear binned and consumers hate them. But they keep buying them. repeatedly.  Dyson's are clear binned w/ Dyson patented technologies and consumers love them....to the tune of 100,000 manufactured per week., no argument.   That's what Dyson should have patented, in addition to everything else, the clear container.    DIB reply:   Again, you do not know this subject.   He tried, but could not. Maybe you could advise him on all the copyright and patent laws and secure this easy to obtain protection.  That's what sells ANY bagless cleaner.    DIB reply: Well, since you cannot get your head around what makes Dyson separators work I can understand your position.   Who would care about no loss of suction if the dirt were in an opaque container?    DIB reply: Fantom Vacuums used opaque bins. They sold $300m worth of product in 3 years and just in the U.S. only.They were translucent, not opaque, so the user could still see the dirt swirl. I know the difference between bagless vacuum technologies. The average consumer does not, nor does he/she care enough to spend the difference, hence my earlier statement that remaining in the dual cyclonic technology market at a lower price point would have been a smart move for Dyson. RE: Bissell's workaround Dyson's multi-cyclonic technology. Surely with his 5,000 prototypes approach Bissell's take on the concept was tried. And even if it was found lacking, it obviously works, and so could have been pre-emptively patented by Dyson, thus keeping Bissell and others at bay for the duration of the patent.

Can we move on now?    DIB reply: Feel free to move on - I hoped you would.  But religiously, you, Carmne, Venson and mole like to come back to Dyson (attack Dyson) in hopes that I respond. And I oblige when I feel like it. DIB, you are like a religious fanatic. It's absolute total conviction with you, or complete apostasy. I have never denied that Dysons inventions have merit, are groundbreaking, and have justly earned him place in history. That hardly sounds like being against him. I am critical of some of his moves in design and the marketplace, but then, I am also critical of Hoover, Rainbow, and others. I could give you a list, but you have no interest in discussing anything but Dysons. For the record I do hold (held) a patent in vacuum cleaner design, and have many ideas for more, but when companies pay big bucks for an engineering staff, they are reluctant to even hear anything from the outside. Dyson is brilliant. That does not mean he is incapable of human failings. He doesn't walk on water. But just because I refuse to worship him does not mean I am attacking him. There  is no middle ground with you.
Trebor

 DIB  

TreborDysonInventsBig wrote:

As for my "attacking" [your word] dyson, when I spend my money on a brand/product, I earn the right to criticize/praise it as the case may be.  If you don't accept that reality, tough.  I'm not here to please you.  I'm here to tell the truth.  It's worked for me in the vacuum business for over 55 years.  How about you?

Carmine D.