Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Batman,

Tell it to the consumer.  Seventy years of business knowhow and the masses continually reject it, and no big-player manufacturer wants it (wants to copy it).  It’s dead in the water (no pun intended).

Not bad and nice try - trying to state I do not appreciate inventions prior to Dyson.  You need to be a rep for the underwhelming vac corps and sling that slop from there.


DIB

Dustmite,

If ignorance is bliss, you must be one happy fellow.    There have been numerous imitations, including water filtration vacs sold on HSN.  

DIB,

I do know the derivation of the term 'sloppy seconds'.  The question is, who decides what is the 'decent' interval between a patent's expiration and copying/adapting it by others?  A century ago a widow who remarried in less than 5 yrs was considered less than a proper lady.  This is the same kind of issue. This is about what YOU consider fair, decent, and proper.  The marketplace is what it is.  Patents expire, they are challenged in court, people copy others' ideas.  Get over it.  Dyson ADAPTED cyclonic separation to a vacuum cleaner. He was inspired by cyclonic separation of sawdust from the air.  Kirby and Hoover already had expired patents for on-board tool designs. Singer and Hoover and Panasonic and Oreck, had already done the 'floating, self adjusting head' concept. As with most inventions it is the application/combination of existing ideas that brings something 'new' to the market place.  Dyson made a mint, good for him. To quote King Solomon in Ecclesiastes "There is nothing new under the sun" 

Trebor

DIB,&lt;BR&gt;&lt;BR&gt;The 'mudbath' as you describe the Rainbow works extremely well.  I have one I use in my cleaning business (see my earlier post) that is 23 years old and still runs like new.  The Rexair was the FIRST water trap vacuum to use a separator. There are Rexairs in excess of 60 years old still working.  Think any Dysons will make it to even 20 years in daily use?&lt;BR&gt;&lt;BR&gt;I am not defending anyone. Your perception that I am is indicative of a paranoid-schizophrenic personality. What I &lt;span style=&quot;font-style: italic;&quot;&gt;am&lt;/span&gt; saying is the patent laws are what they are. Any company is foolish to refrain from using patents which are available to it. And you, DIB are wasting time and posting space by accusing others of opinions holding they do not hold. Yeah, Bissell and TTI make low quality vacuums. And you know what? There is a market for them. People buy them.  I wouldn't, but then I don't buy a lot of popular stuff most people buy.&lt;BR&gt;&lt;BR&gt;Ugly? That's a matter of perception. The Dysons, in my opinion, are no prizewinners for their looks. They are very industrial looking, not what I would call attractive at all. &lt;BR&gt;&lt;BR&gt;You still have ignored James Dyson's claim that he invented the first and only vacuum cleaner that does not lose suction. I don't know about the water trap vacuum you mentioned prior to Rexair  as whether or not it lost suction in use, what I do know is that it did not use a separator, and thus, your bringing up the previous water trap vacuum, and lumping all water trap vacuums together as 'mud baths' is a misdirection away from the the fact that your St James either deliberately, or unwittingly made a false advertising claim when he touted his Dyson vacuum cleaners as &amp;quot;the first&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the only&amp;quot; vacuum that doesn't lose suction. Not true.&lt;BR&gt;&lt;BR&gt;Are you saying that you are unaware of the flimsiness of the hose on the upright Dysons, and/or the lack of a caveat in the manual not to tug on the hose to pull the machine around to a different direction?  I am sure anyone on this forum who repairs and or collects vacuums has seen the flaw I am mentioning. &lt;BR&gt;&lt;BR&gt;Trebor&lt;br type=&quot;_moz&quot;/&gt;<BR>

Trebor,

I do not understand why defending those with low expectations or defending the lazy is worth spending time on.  Feel free to point out all the patents Dyson has stepped on or immediately jumped on after a competitors patent has expired.  Most vacuum related patents are dogs, so Dyson jumping on them is highly unlikely.

Get over it?  You make these multi-million and multi-billion dollar corporations sound like victims and entitled.  Any neophyte can grab expired patents (parts) off the shelf and assemble them in a so-called novel way (not a patentable way for sure).  I say these $500m to $3b corporation’s ain’t entitled to 'jack' and neither are their slimy hustler reps.  Get over it.

DIB

Trebor,

I do not understand why defending those with low expectations or defending the lazy is worth spending time on.  Feel free to point out all the patents Dyson has stepped on or immediately jumped on after a competitors patent has expired.  Most vacuum related patents are dogs, so Dyson jumping on them is highly unlikely.

Get over it?  You make these multi-million and multi-billion dollar corporations sound like victims and entitled.  Any neophyte can grab expired patents (parts) off the shelf and assemble them in a so-called novel way (not a patentable way for sure).  I say these $500m to $3b corporation’s ain’t entitled to 'jack' and neither are their slimy hustler reps.  Get over it.

DIB

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.

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

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.