Vacuum Cleaners Discussions |
|
DysonInventsBig
Location: USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 1454
![]()
|
 |
Samsung's- Dirt Devil Eraser / Halo inspired UV patent.
Original Message Jun 1, 2009 1:12 pm |
|
|
Trebor
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
Points: 321
![]()
|
 |
Re: Samsung's- Dirt Devil Eraser / Halo inspired UV patent.
Reply #78 Nov 20, 2009 9:39 am |
|
DIB,
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?
I am not defending anyone. Your perception that I am is indicative of a paranoid-schizophrenic personality. What I am 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.
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.
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 "the first" and "the only" vacuum that doesn't lose suction. Not true.
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.
Trebor
|
Severus
If my vacuum can remove even one spec of dirt that yours misses, then mine is better than yours - even if there's no proof that mine would have picked up as much dirt as yours...
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 397
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Samsung's- Dirt Devil Eraser / Halo inspired UV patent.
Reply #79 Nov 20, 2009 9:58 am |
|
<BR> DIB,<BR><BR>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?<BR><BR>I am not defending anyone. Your perception that I am is indicative of a paranoid-schizophrenic personality. What I <span style="font-style: italic;">am</span> 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.<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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 &quot;the first&quot; and &quot;the only&quot; vacuum that doesn't lose suction. Not true.<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>Trebor<br type="_moz"/><BR> <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>
This message was modified Nov 20, 2009 by Severus
The smart tyrant writes his own story to ensure that it is favorable. The lazy will repeat lines from the book without fact checking.
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Samsung's- Dirt Devil Eraser / Halo inspired UV patent.
Reply #80 Nov 20, 2009 12:33 pm |
|
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.
|
Trebor
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
Points: 321
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Samsung's- Dirt Devil Eraser / Halo inspired UV patent.
Reply #81 Nov 20, 2009 7:22 pm |
|
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
Location: USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 1454
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Samsung's- Dirt Devil Eraser / Halo inspired UV patent.
Reply #82 Nov 20, 2009 8:31 pm |
|
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
This message was modified Nov 20, 2009 by DysonInventsBig
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Samsung's- Dirt Devil Eraser / Halo inspired UV patent.
Reply #83 Nov 20, 2009 9:39 pm |
|
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.
|
DysonInventsBig
Location: USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 1454
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Samsung's- Dirt Devil Eraser / Halo inspired UV patent.
Reply #84 Nov 21, 2009 9:49 am |
|
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. 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
This message was modified Nov 21, 2009 by DysonInventsBig
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Samsung's- Dirt Devil Eraser / Halo inspired UV patent.
Reply #85 Nov 21, 2009 1:39 pm |
|
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
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
Location: USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 1454
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Samsung's- Dirt Devil Eraser / Halo inspired UV patent.
Reply #86 Nov 21, 2009 3:05 pm |
|
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
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. 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.
This message was modified Nov 21, 2009 by DysonInventsBig
|
CarmineD
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Samsung's- Dirt Devil Eraser / Halo inspired UV patent.
Reply #87 Nov 21, 2009 3:57 pm |
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
