backtop


Print 27 comment(s) - last by tng.. on Feb 18 at 3:26 PM

Samsung says Dyson's original lawsuit hurt its corporate image

Samsung and Dyson were caught up in a lawsuit late last year over vacuum patents, but the UK-based vacuum company's decision to suddenly drop the case has prompted Samsung to file a new compensation lawsuit.

According to The Korea Times, Samsung has filed a 10 billion won ($9.43 million USD) compensation lawsuit against Dyson, saying the vacuum company damaged its image by making Samsung look like a constant patent burglar. 

“Last week, Samsung Electronics’ legal counsel filed legal papers with the Seoul Central District Court against Dyson as the latter’s previous litigation has hurt Samsung’s corporate image,” said a Samsung spokesman. “We are initially seeking 10 billion won compensation from the U.K.-based manufacturer; however, the amount will increase depending on how the court proceedings go."

“Samsung’s marketing activities were negatively affected by Dyson’s groundless litigation, which is intolerable.” 


[SOURCE: Blogspot]

In August 2013, Dyson filed a lawsuit against Samsung over a new vacuum that the Galaxy device maker revealed at IFA 2013. Dyson claimed that Samsung's MotionSync steering mechanism copied its own DC37 and DC39 models. 
 
However, three months after launching the suit, Dyson dropped the case. Samsung then accused Dyson of using patent litigation as a marketing tool, and said Dyson's previous lawsuits with other companies further prove this.
 
Samsung seems to be sick and tired of patent lawsuits. It settled with Google, Ericsson and Cisco separately in recent weeks to end all litigation related to patents.
 
But one notable patent rivalry still remains, and that's between Samsung and Apple. The two have been duking it out since April 2011 when Apple accused Samsung of being an iPhone and iPad copycat. 
 
The two recently tried mediation, but once again failed to come to an agreement

Source: The Korea Times



Comments     Threshold


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

It would be hard to argue..
By piroroadkill on 2/17/14, Rating: 0
RE: It would be hard to argue..
By Theduckofdeath on 2/17/14, Rating: 0
RE: It would be hard to argue..
By sprockkets on 2/17/2014 1:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
Dyson patented the version of cyclonic technology back in the early 90s when Hoover said they'd buy the patents to simply remove the technology from every being on the market.

The reason why you see it commonplace today is because the patents on it expired. Before that, Hoover's bagless setup sucked royally.


RE: It would be hard to argue..
By sprockkets on 2/17/2014 1:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
edit: Dyson before he formed his vacuum company wanted to sell the patents to Hoover, who then said they'd only buy them to keep the tech off the market, because sales of vacuum bags are very profitable.

Later when Hoover saw the success of Dyson, decided to make their own. They were shot down in court in the UK for patent infringement.


RE: It would be hard to argue..
By otherwise on 2/17/2014 3:01:04 PM , Rating: 2
It should be noted that these patents are now expired. There are vacuums on the market that are essentially copies of the original Dyson design; and will probably be updated as further patents expire. The Hoover Mach3 is an example.

I personally think bagless is overrated, and I think a lot of their bad reputation is because most people have never used a high quality bagged vaccume. If you compare Mielle and Dyson side by side you'll probably be very surprised.


RE: It would be hard to argue..
By sprockkets on 2/17/2014 4:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It should be noted that these patents are now expired.

Yeah, already said that.

quote:
The Hoover Mach3 is an example.


Without taking a look inside, it doesn't look like it has the multi cyclonic airways.

quote:
I personally think bagless is overrated, and I think a lot of their bad reputation is because most people have never used a high quality bagged vaccume. If you compare Mielle and Dyson side by side you'll probably be very surprised.


I have. Both have their advantages and weaknesses. If I had to use a bag vacuum for cleaning my buildings, I'd have to use 2 bags every trip due to salt and sanding clogging the bag up. The good bagless vacuums remove most all of the fine dirt before reaching the washable filters. All I have to do is empty the canister 3 times instead.

I think of it this way - the cyclonic part of a bagless vacuum is just another filter, of which doesn't clog (or at least shouldn't if designed well). Conversely as you said, if you have a good bag setup, it won't clog either until it needs to be emptied. Some lose suction quite easily.


RE: It would be hard to argue..
By Samus on 2/18/2014 2:32:07 AM , Rating: 2
Even though the patents are expired, people where making bagless vacuum's all through the 90's and 00's when Dyson had the patent on it.

I don't like patent trolls, but Dyson spends millions in R&D on vacuum technology that is very easy for competitors to copy once put into production. If somebody all the sudden makes a vacuum that uses a similar fan blade, filter, rolling mechanism, brush design, or whatever, right after Dyson's model hits the market, that's a pretty shitty deal.

However, even after owning a Dyson, I still prefer my Oreck. I like bags. Always have more suction, way cleaner, and I spend maybe $20/year on them. That's how much a replacement filter for a bagless vac costs, anyway.


By inperfectdarkness on 2/18/2014 1:16:59 AM , Rating: 3
Bagless has been over-rated in the past, because only Dyson's had centrifuge tech. Everyone else was using a conventional filter stuck in a "canister", and the filter would clog like nobody's business.

Centrifuge vacuums all but eliminate suction loss, which means that they will outperform virtually any other type of vacuum--even a brand new bagged vacuum with an empty bag.

P.S.
Dyson isn't a patent troll. They did patent the technology in a vacuum. Defending that patent nearly bankrupted the company. This is a far, far cry from what Apple does on a daily basis.


RE: It would be hard to argue..
By p05esto on 2/17/14, Rating: -1
RE: It would be hard to argue..
By sprockkets on 2/17/2014 1:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
Mess? What mess? You hit a button and it pops out right into the trash can. But bags are convenient.

Even higher end vacuums now have filters you can clean out now.

Oh,and you think Oreck is a good vacuum? That be true if you still were in the 80s. They're brush rollers are pathetic. Sebo/Windsor are king of the commercial vacuums in hotels and businesses. Riccar is also another good USA made vacuum. Heck even Hoover makes a indestructible commercial vacuum for the past 30+ years.


RE: It would be hard to argue..
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2014 1:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah pretty much all residential vacuums are crap. I went with a commercial model for my place because it's the only quality option sadly. It's not sexy, but it just works damn good.


RE: It would be hard to argue..
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/14, Rating: 0
RE: It would be hard to argue..
By piroroadkill on 2/17/2014 1:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say that, I'm just saying they made super popular.


RE: It would be hard to argue..
By sprockkets on 2/17/2014 1:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
Dyson did invent it, over 20 years ago and patented it. The patents on it have expired, which is why Hoover and others can use the cyclonic design.


RE: It would be hard to argue..
By Murloc on 2/17/2014 12:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
I've always had bags in my house....

bagless looks like a messy thing.


RE: It would be hard to argue..
By ssnova703 on 2/17/2014 1:07:15 PM , Rating: 3
Look at Hoover's bagless canister and Dirt Devil's:

http://www1.macys.com/shop/product/hoover-sh40080-...

http://www.globalindustrial.com/product/itemKey/30...

Gee, don't they all look similar? Lots of companies going after Samsung as a "copycat" but design trends are universal in their era.


RE: It would be hard to argue..
By sprockkets on 2/17/2014 1:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
FYI Hoover and Dirt Devil are now owned by the same company for the past few years.


RE: It would be hard to argue..
By Hakuryu on 2/17/2014 1:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why you are all caught up on 'bagless' vaccums... has nothing to do with the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was about steering. Dyson has that ball in back, and they felt Samsung's implementation of basically the same idea was infringing.

In essence, it was a 'we invented a certain kind of steering', and although Samsung uses a different mechanism, it steers the same way. Stupid lawsuit.


RE: It would be hard to argue..
By Solandri on 2/17/2014 4:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The lawsuit was about steering. Dyson has that ball in back, and they felt Samsung's implementation of basically the same idea was infringing.

As best as I can tell, the big ball is just a marketing gimmick. They could've replaced it with regular wheels and rounded out the sides of the case to help push it around corners.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_87qQqDYgA#t=62s

quote:
In essence, it was a 'we invented a certain kind of steering', and although Samsung uses a different mechanism, it steers the same way. Stupid lawsuit.

Yeah, looking through Dyson's website, it looks like they're just promoting that their vacuum's steering is dynamically stable. Well, there are lots of ways to make something dynamically stable, and you certainly can't get a patent on "anything that's dynamic stable". It's just that most people are unfamiliar with the concept on a formal basis (I didn't get introduced to it until a graduate-level physics course).

Easy dynamic stability example: Grab a bicycle by the seat and push it forward. The forward motion tends to make the steering straighten out. This is dynamically stable. Now push the bike backwards by the seat. The backwards motion tends to make a slight turn of the steering wheel into an even bigger turn, and the bike goes into a tight spin. This is dynamically unstable.

Same thing happens with your car, it's just harder to tell because most people don't drive a long distance backwards. It's why the Volvo / Van Damme commercial was so impressive for anyone in the trucking business. The trucks were going backwards in a dynamically unstable configuration, and Volvo's steering kept them tracking straight.


wait for it...
By Motoman on 2/17/2014 12:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Samsung Countersues Dyson for $9.43 Million USD Over "Copied" Vacuum Design


...that sucks.




RE: wait for it...
By tng on 2/18/2014 3:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, this one got me after over a decade of working with various arms of Samsung
quote:
damaged its image by making Samsung look like a constant patent burglar.

They are kidding right?


Dyson, Apple sitting in a tree
By Theduckofdeath on 2/17/2014 11:44:06 AM , Rating: 2
P-A-T-E-N-T-T-R-O-L-L-I-N-G

About time for this to end.




RE: Dyson, Apple sitting in a tree
By pyrojack on 2/17/14, Rating: 0
If you own a Dyson...
By masamasa on 2/17/2014 10:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
You will know that any Samsung vaccuum is not even remotely in the same class as a Dyson. By the way, don't buy a Samsung dishwasher either. They suck. Stick to phones.




Dyson
By Strunf on 2/18/2014 6:59:56 AM , Rating: 2
Dyson is like the Apple of the vacuum cleaners...

Ya no bag but no possibility to work at low power either, so what you save in bag you waste in electricity, considering they cost a lot more I doubt they will ever be a worthy investment.




Whaaaaa!?
By msheredy on 2/17/14, Rating: -1
"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Related Articles













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