backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by Sivar.. on Sep 11 at 5:55 PM


Samsung's Motion Sync
Samsung's Motion Sync is the target

Samsung is already engaged in a bloody battle with Apple over smartphone and tablet patents, but now, the South Korean electronics company may be sued for vacuum patents. 

British technology company Dyson Ltd. is looking to file a lawsuit against Samsung over a new vacuum that the Galaxy device maker revealed at IFA 2013 last week. Dyson claims that Samsung's vacuum infringes on its patent for a steering mechanism specifically for cylinder cleaners.  

"This looks like a cynical rip-off," said Sir James Dyson, founder of Dyson. "Samsung has many patent lawyers so I find it hard not to believe that this is a deliberate or utterly reckless infringement of our patent. We have been forced to issue proceedings in the English High Court, but I would much rather invest in research to develop new technology than have to sue."

Dyson filed for the steering patent in 2009. It consists of a technique that allows the cleaner to spin quickly from one direction to another on the spot, and also follow the user's path rather than just being dragged behind. This stops the vacuum from getting snagged on corners.

Samsung's new cleaner -- the Samsung Motion Sync -- touts a revolutionary swivel body design that makes quick movements and allows for easier sudden turns. 


Samsung, of course, denies that it was copying Dyson's design. 

"We will take all necessary measures, including legal actions, to protect our technological innovation against Dyson's groundless claims," said a Samsung spokeswoman.

This isn't the first showdown between Samsung and Dyson. Back in 2009, Samsung was ordered to pay £600,000 for trying to patent Dyson's "triple-cyclone" suction technology. 

Source: BBC News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Well...
By Spookster on 9/10/2013 11:17:55 AM , Rating: 4
that sucks.




RE: Well...
By russki on 9/10/2013 12:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
Dyson claims to innovate, but even a $600 vacuum doesn't have an automatic cord winder.. that's just sad. And $600 for a vacuum cleaner? They sucking something other than dirt over there at dyson lol


RE: Well...
By Lonyo on 9/10/2013 12:55:34 PM , Rating: 3
Probably worth it for people who clean for a living. Like... cleaners. The $600 part, not the no auto winder bit.


RE: Well...
By The Von Matrices on 9/10/2013 9:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
No one who cleans for a living uses Dyson vacuums. They use specifically designed commercial models with no frills. They clean floors and that's it, but they are basically indestructible.


RE: Well...
By Solandri on 9/11/2013 2:21:53 AM , Rating: 2
Well, not indestructible, but a lot more durable than a consumer model. When I worked at a hotel, we used commercial vacuums which would last 2 years, 3 if you pushed it. I was told someone thought they could save money by replacing one with a consumer model once. It fell apart a little past 3 months.


RE: Well...
By piroroadkill on 9/11/2013 4:09:52 AM , Rating: 2
Huh? Our old Dyson DC08 has an automatic cord winder, and it works well...


RE: Well...
By Dribble on 9/11/2013 4:38:35 AM , Rating: 2
Find me a dyson without an automatic cord winder? They all do.

Dyson started when one guy invented a new design for a bagless cleaner. He tried to sell it to several companies who all said no but one (hoover) then brought out a cleaner copying that design, assuming they could bully a loan inventor into submission. Mr Dyson then had to fight the monster company in the courts spending every penny he had.

Hence he has a history of having to fight for his inventions. His company puts massive effort into on innovation so not surprisingly keep coming out with new stuff which everyone keeps trying to copy.


RE: Well...
By mike8675309 on 9/11/2013 2:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
A DC40, DC50 do not have auto winders though they run between $350 and $500


RE: Well...
By Any14Tee on 9/10/2013 6:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
Damn I was going to say that!!!
Now I know, my life is a complete vacuum.


win
By Motoman on 9/10/2013 1:24:45 PM , Rating: 4
Samsung at it Again!
By WhatKaniSay on 9/10/13, Rating: 0
hmmm..
By mchentz on 9/10/13, Rating: -1
RE: hmmm..
By johnnycanadian on 9/10/2013 11:05:10 AM , Rating: 1
Why innovate when you can simply steal? It's the Samsung way.


RE: hmmm..
By Denigrate on 9/10/2013 11:20:15 AM , Rating: 5
. . . and the Apple way.


RE: hmmm..
By GulWestfale on 9/10/2013 11:29:56 AM , Rating: 2
dyson has sued many other vacuum makers, including bosch and hoover. samsung's vacuum division is obviously not the same as its smartphone division. so, i will withhold judgement until we have all the facts... well, actually, this is a vacuum cleaner... tell me again why i should care?


RE: hmmm..
By Samus on 9/10/2013 1:05:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
dyson has sued many other vacuum makers, including bosch and hoover


Exactly. Dyson essentially invented the bag-less vacuum (and had a patent on it through the 80's and early 90's) and won litigation against Hoover in the 90's. Although I have owned a Dyson and they are very high quality vacuums (irregardless of the mostly plastic construction, unlike Oreck) I still like bags more.

On a related note, considering how Samsung is constantly in the news for patent infringement, I'm concerned they are taking a "Chinese-approach" of the feeling that copying other people is more a form of flattery than a form of infringement. Because they do it a lot. I own a lot of Samsung stuff, and especially their earlier stuff was clearly inspired by their competition.


RE: hmmm..
By GulWestfale on 9/10/2013 2:41:18 PM , Rating: 3
irregardless is not a real word.


RE: hmmm..
RE: hmmm..
By bigboxes on 9/10/2013 6:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's a real word. Just redundant. As in you sound ignorant when you use it. Just use regardless.


RE: hmmm..
By Chaser on 9/11/2013 1:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
So many use it with impunity it's become an accepted term by many noted by Merriam. But that doesn't make it correct. Unless words like unimpossible and unfaultless sound "correct" too.

Regard or regardless. Using a language correctly contributes or inhibits credibility. Using and mastering any language STILL is more than citing selective links from a website.


RE: hmmm..
By Reclaimer77 on 9/10/2013 2:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
So only Dyson can make vacuums that turn quickly or use cylinders? This patent system is crushing innovation, not encouraging it.


RE: hmmm..
By Sivar on 9/11/2013 5:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So only Dyson can make vacuums that turn quickly or use cylinders? This patent system is crushing innovation, not encouraging it.


Only Dyson can use the methods they spent the R&D money to develop and patent. Innovation is not being stifled because other companies are free to develop their own means to accomplish the same goal. This is how the system is supposed to work.

In general, though, I agree that the patent system is crushing innovation.


RE: hmmm..
By bill.rookard on 9/10/2013 3:41:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Exactly. Dyson essentially invented the bag-less vacuum (and had a patent on it through the 80's and early 90's) and won litigation against Hoover in the 90's. Although I have owned a Dyson and they are very high quality vacuums (irregardless of the mostly plastic construction, unlike Oreck) I still like bags more.


As do I. All those bagless systems still have to have a filter on them which will need to be changed, otherwise you're just blowing dust around because none of them can actually trap 99.9% of dust with their 'super-triple-quintupule-cyclonic-volcanic-tornado' action. It still will ultimately rely on a filter to trap the rest, and whether you have to change a bag, or a filter, point is you still have to change a consumable/disposable SOMETHING.

I'd rather have a bag which holds about 10lbs of dirt/hair and which has trapped 99.9% of anything passing through it than have to constantly be emptying a small 1/2lb canister. With my dogs, and how much they shed, they'd bring that poor vacuum to it's knees right quick. Meanwhile, my Kirby just keeps on sucking.


RE: hmmm..
By DT_Reader on 9/10/2013 4:03:26 PM , Rating: 3
Cyclonic vacuum technology is nothing new, and Dyson did not invent it. I don't know what they patented, but it wasn't the cyclonic vacuum system. I saw them used in industrial settings in the 1970's, and they were old hat then. Bag-less is also nothing new; the bag-less Dust Buster was introduced in 1979 and I'm sure it wasn't the first.

Dyson is a marketing genius, but his products aren't that special. Remember the first rule of marketing: Claim your weakest fault is a unique strength. Dyson's weakest fault is that you have to dump out that canister of loose dirt while with most other vacuum cleaners you toss a bag of dirt in the trash, so Dyson naturally claims the canister makes his vacuum better. The argument is that as the bag fills it blocks airflow, but most vacuums get around that by filling the bag from the bottom up. If you stop at the full line you have no loss of suction. And, as others have pointed out, the Dyson has a filter that needs changing, too.


RE: hmmm..
By Azethoth on 9/10/2013 5:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, my Dyson has a filter that I need to change?


RE: hmmm..
By inperfectdarkness on 9/11/2013 3:59:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm wondering if these DT pundits have actually used a Dyson vacuum. I own one, and although it's an older model (DC-07) it's night and day between it and garden-variety bagged or bagless vacuums. The day I bought it, I vacuumed my entire house with the incumbent $200 Bissel bagged vacuum--with an empty bag freshly installed. I managed to fill it 1/3rd. Then I proceeded to re-vacuum the entire house with the Dyson. I had to stop after the first room and empty the cannister--and emptied it 3 more times by the time I finished.

Yes, there is a filter. The difference is, your standard-fare "bagless" vacuums syphon air through the air filter..which is in direct contact with the dirt particles. The Dyson's cyclone manages to remove about 99.99% of those particles from the airflow before it reaches the filter--meaning that the filter usually only requires wash & dry service (not replacement) once every 6 months or so. As to the dust particles from emptying the cannister? I don't really have issues with that. My old bagged vacuum also would belch a few stray particles out the fill-hole when it was changed out (it also insured the house would reek of whatever smell was being vacuumed up--unlike the Dyson).

While Dyson may not have invented the centrifuge technology, they certainly were the first to apply it to vacuums...and they have every right to vigorously defend that. I know there's a lot of naysayers who think that they are overpriced, junk, etc. I've had nothing but amazing results with mine, and I'll be buying another one whenever I decide to pass mine along to a relative. Each time I read about Dyson involved in a legal dispute, I have to say I'm firmly in Dyson's corner on public opinion. From the vacuum to the hand-drier, their products simply blow (or suck) the competition away.


RE: hmmm..
By ClownPuncher on 9/10/2013 1:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
It's a patent issue. That the dispute is over vacuum technology is mostly irrelevant.


RE: hmmm..
By Reclaimer77 on 9/10/2013 1:52:29 PM , Rating: 3
Dyson vacuums are extremely overpriced poorly designed junk. The Bose audio of vacs.

They're routinely suing competition to protect their illusory market edge.


RE: hmmm..
By AnnihilatorX on 9/10/2013 2:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
Dyson makes functionally decent vacuum cleaners, the problem is their over use of cheap plastic parts mean they are as sturdy as paper origami.


RE: hmmm..
By The Von Matrices on 9/10/2013 10:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
Having sold vacuum cleaners a few years ago I could never figure out why the Dyson vacuums cost 50% more than competitors. They certainly did not perform any better, and they have lots of ridiculous design issues. For example, Dyson uses clear plastic dust bins. Sure, they look great in the showroom, but as soon as the vacuum is used once the interior becomes gray from the dust and gets scratched by the dirt. It never looks good again. Just like most of the "features" on Dyson vacuums, it's a gimmick to increase the price. The store in which I worked would let customers test the vacuums sold, and most of the customers who tested the Dyson agreed that it just wasn't any better than the competition.


RE: hmmm..
By inperfectdarkness on 9/11/2013 4:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
I find that interesting. I've extensively used bagged and "generic" bagless vacuums...and found the Dyson performed far superior to either. As to "design issues", I prefer a clear dust-bin as it makes it significantly easier to see when it needs emptied. Dyson's may look "gimmicky" but I can't argue with my own personal results from using and owning one. Sure, an automatic cord-winder would be a plus...but I also don't have to mess around with the hose either; it stores neatly on the handle. Even cleaning the brush on my Dyson proved to be significantly easier than on my old Bissel.

I won't say I'm surprised though. People who spend $20,000 on a new car don't usually understand the people who spend $40,000 on a new car (figuratively speaking). If you aren't a discriminating buyer--one who knows what features and performance you're looking for--then all you really need is 4 wheels and an engine. Or in this case, an electric motor and a dust-collection apparatus. There is a difference though. I've used both and seen it with my own eyes.


RE: hmmm..
By Sivar on 9/11/2013 5:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dyson vacuums are extremely overpriced poorly designed junk. The Bose audio of vacs.

They're routinely suing competition to protect their illusory market edge.


Not at all true. They are overpriced, yes, but they are good vacuums. Bose speakers are overpriced and they are hilariously bad products.

The Dyson bladeless fans are a better example. Overpriced, underperforming, and targeted at "lifestyle" customers with more money than brain.


RE: hmmm..
By Argon18 on 9/10/13, Rating: -1
RE: hmmm..
By FaaR on 9/10/2013 1:15:41 PM , Rating: 3
Apple makes vacuum cleaners now? That's news to pretty much the entire universe.

Seriously, big corps steal anytime and every time they think they can get away with it, and often if they can't either, they just throw more lawyers at the mess than the entity they stole from. Microsoft has repeatedly thieved tech from competitors for decades, and often buried said competitors too. Anywhere you look in the tech business and see a large corporation, you're undoubtedly looking at a thief.

Knee-jerking to point out apple in a discussion where such an observation is totally irrelevant is just pathetic.


RE: hmmm..
By w8gaming on 9/10/2013 10:11:42 PM , Rating: 1
Now you brings Microsoft into this discussion while the original article has nothing to do with it. Talking about Apple fanboys being fanatical and always think Apple can do no wrong while in reality they steal just like anyone else. Anyway, really pointless to get trolled by such post.


RE: hmmm..
By troysavary on 9/10/2013 11:05:16 AM , Rating: 3
Next up, Apple sues both Dyson and Samsung because they patented "suck".


RE: hmmm..
By retrospooty on 9/10/2013 11:59:22 AM , Rating: 2
LOL... If not for the bad PR, I am sure they would.


RE: hmmm..
By bug77 on 9/10/2013 11:11:28 AM , Rating: 2
Its not totally impossible for two teams working separately to come to the same technical solution. But you knew that, you were just trolling.


RE: hmmm..
By msheredy on 9/10/13, Rating: 0
RE: hmmm..
By drycrust3 on 9/10/2013 11:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
As I understand it, patent law doesn't actually care whether you knew about someone else's patent, what it cares about is whether your product actually infringes upon someone else's patent.
In fact, the way it seems is that even if you don't think you have infringed that isn't important, it's whether someone else interprets their patent (and the link to your product may be very obscure) to have been infringed that is important.


RE: hmmm..
By msheredy on 9/10/2013 11:23:56 AM , Rating: 2
Can't say that it surprises me.


RE: hmmm..
By Hakuryu on 9/10/2013 11:32:21 AM , Rating: 2
It depends what you call a similar design.

A canister vacuum that turns quickly and does not drag could have many different real world mechanisms to accomplish this. Is Dyson being Apple and claiming no other vacuum can turn quickly because they own the patent for that?

Like they said, Samsung has patent lawyers, so I'm inclined to think they wouldn't just try and copy the mechanism Dyson invented, but only found another way to accomplish what that mechanism does, using their own unique solution.


RE: hmmm..
By Argon18 on 9/10/2013 11:40:17 AM , Rating: 2
You're speculating on engineering designs based solely on the quantity of patent attorneys? Huh???

The cell phone makers each have an army of patent attorneys, but that doesn't stop them from infringing on each other. What led you to believe the vacuum cleaner industry was so different?


RE: hmmm..
By Hakuryu on 9/10/2013 12:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
Dyson's patent is probably a very specific drawing of their mechanism and vague words to encompass anything like it.

Samsung's vacuum probably uses another design entirely, because a lawsuit would be a slam dunk if they just copied Dyson's mechanism.

So the question is - did Samsung blatantly copy a mechanism, or are they being sued because they infringed on a 'quick turning vaccum' (which could mean anything).


RE: hmmm..
By Argon18 on 9/10/2013 3:20:43 PM , Rating: 1
Yet again, you're making baseless assumptions while in posession of exactly zero facts. How can you say that "Samsung probably..." when you don't even know what the design in question looks like, you have not read even one word of the patents, nor do you know what the claim of infringement is? i.e. you are talking out your ass.


RE: hmmm..
By Headfoot on 9/10/2013 3:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
You are clearly talking out of your ass because this is a UTILITY patent not a DESIGN patent. They are very, very different


RE: hmmm..
By Headfoot on 9/10/2013 3:31:37 PM , Rating: 1
You clearly don't know shit about patents. It's called a design-around and patent lawyers advise that you do it day in and day out. Literally the most common question asked of patent lawyers is "How do I do the same thing without infringing?" or some variant thereof.

So if an organization has a lot of patent lawyers you can bet your ass they were advising/advocating for design-arounds. Whether management took the advice or not is a separate issue


RE: hmmm..
By Tony Swash on 9/10/13, Rating: -1
RE: hmmm..
By mritter1981 on 9/10/2013 2:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I really cannot understand though are the chumps who defend Apple .


FIFY.

Even if it is off topic, try to look outside the Apple field eh (just because someone commented that Dyson is pulling an Apple). Reverse the cranio-rectal insertion, and realize NO ONE REALLY CARES!


RE: hmmm..
By Argon18 on 9/10/13, Rating: -1
RE: hmmm..
By retrospooty on 9/10/2013 2:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
"What I really cannot understand though are the chumps who defend Samsung."

Ya, imagine the absurdity of going online to defend a company of all things... Amazing how odd some people are 'ey?

The funny thing is that Samsung and Apple are the almost identical in this regard. Both copy shamelessly and act like they don't, then press the "faux outrage" button when they are copied.


RE: hmmm..
By Motoman on 9/10/2013 11:59:26 AM , Rating: 3
Dysan should have just patented the concept of using the color black in a vacuum cleaner.

And every other color.

Then they'd be set.


RE: hmmm..
By Flunk on 9/10/2013 2:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't software patents, where the patent office has no idea what they're doing. They've wised up to stuff like that now, only took 150 years.


RE: hmmm..
By jeepga on 9/10/2013 12:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
The same design in of itself is not an issue. The issue is that at least one design element is covered by a patent.

Using existing designs is not a bad thing. All manufacturers do it to one degree or another, and they should. Recreating the wheel doesn't make sense.

Innovation should be applauded, but copying a non-patented design shouldn't be ridiculed.


RE: hmmm..
By Headfoot on 9/10/2013 3:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think this is about a design patent.


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki