Samsung flings sueball at Dyson for 'intolerable' IP copycat claim Samsung is looking for 10 billion won ($9.43m) in compensation from Dyson after the vacuum maker dropped its patent lawsuit against the Korean firm. Dyson DC37 vacuum cleaners The chaebol is claiming that the IP litigation over its MotionSync range of hoovers damaged its corporate image. Dyson filed the suit with the UK …
They may look similay, but my VW Golf looks a lot like many other five door family hatchbacks. I strongly suspect it's rather more function defined form than anything else.
That said, the Samsung is all dark grey and industrial looking, whereas the Dyson is light silver with big chunks of brighly coloured plastic and a hint of a designer who's just seen alien. I guess what I'm saying is that if someone showed me both cleaners unbadged, I'd be more than capable of saying which one was and which one wasn't the Dyson.
Pretty much all cyclonic separators look the same and have since 1945 when they were invented. Sure, you can play with diameters, height and flow velocities depending on what you're separating but you're going to get pretty much the same thing if the goal is to make something about the size of and with the functionality of existing vacuum cleaners.
Thanks for someone pointing out that Dyson didn't - contrary to popular opinion - invent the cyclone as a method of extracting dirt from air.
Dyson may well have invented some specific techologies, but he does tend to allow as many people as he can to think he invented the whole concept..
" although one has to admit that they do look decidedly similar:"
I can confirm that form does not follow function, if my cheapo Samsung bagless vacuum cleaner is anything to go by. Dirt pick up is poor, dust retention appalling, the suction starts off strong but drops off alarmingly quickly. It seems to be similar to Dyson (by reputation) as the turbo brush was pathetic and short lived, and various bits have broken or dropped off.
And Samsung have a USP of world's noisiest vaccum cleaner. I keep a pair of ear defenders over the handle, so unpleasant and exterme is the noise. Amusingly, the box proudly announced "Whisper quiet", and I have a mental image of two profoundly deaf Samsung engneers
standing by the device, itself screaming away into an aero engine test bed, even their vision going opaque due to the intensity of the noise energy, congratulating each other in blurred Korean Sign Language on their silent vacuum cleaner.
Hmm, my recent experience with Vax is that they are a bit shite (a fragile vacuum and a stream mop - the mop really does push the boundaries of shitely designed product). Esp. compared with my Dyson ball thingy which I have been very impressed with.
I think this is a YMMV one. I replaced a Dyson with a Vax because the Dyson broke and I couldn't get parts - after 2 years. The Vax is now over 4 years old (as I work out with surprise) and is still working perfectly.
But neither of them come near my 10 year old Henry that cleans the garage. OK it goes through bags, but when I think of what has gone into those bags over the years, ranging from metal filings through wood shavings to carbon fibre, I'd rather empty a sealed bag into a dustbin than have to get the dust out of a Dyson.
Since Dyson's have a 5 year warrantee, and have had for some years, I presume your broken Dyson was really quite some time ago? Wait though - you've had the Vax for 4 years, so the Dyson must be six (by your numbers), so was within warrantee at the time it failed. Something doesn't add up.
Oh, and I still see parts for Dysons from years ago on market stalls. Not that mine have ever gone wrong.
"I'l get a Vax, if only for old time's sake."
Choose carefully. If you have a look at the cheapest bagless cleaners carrying the Samsung, Hoover and Vax names, you'll see several machines that look near identical. Who actually designed them we'll never know, and my guess is that they all come out of the same factory in China. And they're all Which? "Don't buys".
Don't do it! Vax are rubbish. The belt driving the one I had was so weak that the second anything got caught, it would break, no matter how quickly you switched it off.
I was averaging 2 new belts a month at one point.
Vax even have "Don't take me back to the shop" written on their boxes and on the cleaners themselves. Speaks volumes about their confidence in the products, I thought.
"because the British company's accusation that Sammy was a serial patent violator hurt its image"
Shouldn't be difficult to find evidence of truth though. All we need to prove "serial patent violater" is two or more (for "serial") examples of Samsung losing patent claims (for "patent violater")
Patent violation number 1:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25842637
Patenet violation number 2:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/apple-wins-290m-in-damages-from-samsung-in-patent-infringement-case-8956989.html
OK, I managed to prove the truth of Dyson's statement within five minutes of Googling.
Of course, many other companies are "serial patent violators", but that doesn't mean that Dyson has lied.
Also worth pointing out that if you select random members of the general public and say "Samsung" and "patent", then 100% will reply "Apple" and 0.43% will reply "Dyson".
If Samsung were truly worried about lawsuits that damaged their image, they'd sue Apple. In reality, they're just picking on someone who (they hope) isn't big enough to fight back. Quite how they think *that* won't damage their image is anyone's guess.
Absolute rubbish. The autocomplete claim is therefore against the entire Android ecosystem, which includes the autocomplete system as base functionality. **IF** the Apple copyright has any merit Apple simply went after Samsung, as they are currently the largest supplier of Android phones. HTC, LG, Motorola, et al, and Google itself, are all, therefore, just as "guilty" of infringing on that bloody copyright.
is that Apple's patents are invalid bullshit, and the real reason for the court rulings is that Apple is an American firm and Samsung isn't. Apple didn't invent autocomplete, any more than they invented rounded rectangles. Everything that Apple's iDevices do had been around for years, and all Apple contributed was glossy design and marketing, but the broken land-grab nature of the US patent system has allowed them to assert their specious patents.
For example, what part of Apple's so-called auto-complete "invention" has even the slightest innovative step beyond what was described in the prior art patent 6377965 (filing date: Nov 7, 1997)?
A word completion system that can automatically predict unrestricted word completions for data entries in an unstructured portion of a data file. The word completion system applies prediction criteria to avoid annoying the user by displaying an excessive number of wrong suggestions. Suggested word completions, which may change as the user types a partial data entry, are displayed in a non-disruptive manner and selected using traditional acceptance keystrokes, such as the "tab" key or the "enter" key. The word completion system may be deployed on an individual application program basis or on a application-independent basis. Because different word suggestion lists may be appropriate for different application programs, and for different data files created with the same application program, the word completion system allows the user to select one or more suggestion lists for use with each data file. A user interface allows the user to customize each suggestion list on an on-going basis...
(Tip o' the hat to patents.stackexchange for digging that one up.)
The article mentioned the original Dyson filing was for a ball steering mechanism, which is clearly something quite patentable, a real engineering solution to an engineering problem.
Dyson must have felt that the effort was more than it was worth to chase a monster SPI (Serial Paent Infringer) like Samsung. I suggest that the original filing information will now get litigated as part of the counter suit.
I looked at the Samsung link, and the devices do look remarkably similar. I suspect they have made just sufficient number of changes to Dyson's design to avoid a "registered trade dress" suit in the UK. This is the Samsung MO, copy everything and change it just enough to avoid getting sued. Samsung is not the only Asian manufacturer to have this as their guiding philosophy
Although suction is about the same Miele is a far better machine. Firstly the Dyson gets dirty looking within a matter of months; dust accumulates in the crevices of the casing and is hard to clean out. Secondly instead of using bags the Dyson uses a filter - the bag is the filter in other machines like Miele - which means that when emptying the Dyson it is easy to get a lung full of particulates. Compare this to removing a closed bag of dust. The Miele has a HEPA filter at the exhaust which complements the bag when in use. The Miele is not a health hazard when "emptying." Dyson/Samsung is about marketing technology that sounds and looks fancy. The Dyson filter needs changing once a year = about the same cost as Miele bags for a year.
FFS.
Whilst no Dyson apologist (just a happy customer), got to point out the FACTUAL ERRORS in your post.
The Dyson is marketed as a BAGLESS VACUUM. That's why it doesn't have BAGS, Bags clog (yes, they really do) and suction efficiency decreases as the bag fills. And emptying and avoiding particulates is trivial. Pop off the container, put it in the wheely bin. Pull trigger. Stand aside if windy which is usual the only hazard.
Second point. The Dyson HEPA filter is washable, and never needs replacing. As is the motor filter.
I stand corrected on the second point. The Dyson filter no longer needs annual replacing - they are good for about 4 years now with the also unhealthy 6 month washing procedure. On the first point BAGLESS was my point. When removing the motor filter to wash the air will fill with particulates. When emptying the Dyson the air around will fill with particulates - nasty often invisible heavy metals etc - you might not see the cloud but you ARE inhaling it.
The Miele does not lose suction until it is almost full. But you are happy and that's good.
Washable HEPA filters? Not mine...They may have changed the design, but the HEPA filters in my two upright Dysons were paper and not washable. When my machines lost suction after a few months use, ("100% of the suction, 100% of the time" - I don't think so...), I first removed the totally clogged 6" foam filter, (inadequate surface area for the job IMHO), washed that, dried it and replaced it and wondered why the wife was still whinging, so prised off another cover with a screwdriver at great risk of breaking the plastic and found a clogged paper "Lifetime" HEPA filter inside, took it out and threw it away - job done. At least now there's only one filter to clog up after a few month's use, and don't get me started about broken clutches and split hoses... My old Hoover Senior from the 60's was better. It even had a light on the front, and was made of sturdy aluminium.... and before you ask, much to my regret I gave it away to the local scouts after falling for the Dyson hype. Bags clog and filters clog - not much difference, really.
@James Hughes 1 Bags clog and suction efficiency decreases as the bag fills
I'm sure that's true, but everything depends on how well the bag/filter/cyclone solution is implemented.
My Miele vacuum cleaner is about 5 years old, but there's no evidence of loss of suction, even when the bag is packed tight with something like a kilo of dust. It's also fairly light, easy to carry, and retracts its own cable very smartly.
The predecessor was a Dyson. Even without bags, it suffered from diminishing suction. Emptying it was a filthy job on anything but a windless day. Various components, including the hose, failed and had to be replaced. And it was so heavy and cumbersome that my cleaner hated it.
I still cannot see how emptying the Dyson (or any other bagless cleaner) is a filthy job. I do it all the time, and get no more dirty than I do emptying a Henry or Meile (yes, have opportunity to empty both). Stand upwind if you are worried about blown dust. It's not rocket science.
As for the filters. Washed the Dyson ones a few time, no problems at all. So not sure what other people are seeing.
Just looking at the Samsung vacuum cleaners it is clear that they are intended to be mistaken for the Dyson products. I don't subscribe to the rounded corners BS but on vaccum cleaners they do seem to me to have crossed the line. I understand that the Dyson shape grew out of their ball IP and so cannot be seen as being the optimal shape without the ball, to me at least Samsung have stepped over the line.
"The patent system offers us some protection but not enough: with an army of lawyers, hidden prior art is occasionally found and ways to design around existing patents identified."
Why should it offer any protection to something that is not prior art or if a company achieve the desired effect in a different way? You can't patent ideas, just the way of implementing them neber mind if it's not an original suggestion.
In other words: "Bigger boys came".
I lost a lot of time for him when he packed his manufacturing off out of the country and now lectures the government of manufacturing in the UK and the state of education. He seems to be just another angry old man who can't see the links between what he does and what his company has to deal with. You'll also notice that the price of his vaccum cleaners didn't reduce when he offshored to save money.
Yes, like I said "Biger boys came" with added "so we took our bat and ball and went away". Not allowed to expand a particular factory, so he had to go to Malaysia to find another viable one? Do you mean to tell me there wasn't a single viable facility in the whole of the UK, or even Europe to house his works?
The patent system offers us some protection but not enough: with an army of lawyers, hidden prior art is occasionally found and ways to design around existing patents identified.
Wow, did they really think that saying that would make them look good, rather than like they have an outrageous sense of entitlement? They're saying that they feel they deserve paying if people don't violate their patents, by doing something different, or if their patents turn out to be invalid. Sorry, but no way: like copyright, a patent doesn't give you ownership of an idea; it gives you ownership of the physical expression of an idea, in this case an invention. If someone does the same thing in a different way, that's then their invention, not yours, and you have no business interfering.
Serously, screw Dyson. Just because they're David to Samsung's Goliath doesn't mean they're automatically in the right, and it sounds to me like this time they're just dead wrong.
Well, I can see where Samsung is coming from - I'd be extremely insulted if someone implied that I wanted to make stuff that looks like the "I just got a color monitor and a solids modeling program!" exercises in industrial design that Dyson favors.
Seriously, though - Miele. My wife and I have a decade-old one that was only just handed down from my parents, and the thing is absolutely bloody brilliant. It's a bit scratched, and the tool door doesn't hold itself open anymore, but everything else works flawlessly.
If you ever have the opportunity, pull apart a Miele a bit and check out the material usage. There's almost no really hard plastic in there, and the flexibility and texture of the parts - even the hidden ones - varies dramatically depending on the jobs they do. Result: Stuff doesn't snap off, get brittle, or otherwise fail unceremoniously. It's an absolute masterwork of functional, beautiful design.
The Germans may have tried to conquer Europe and murder my ancestors, but god damn, do they ever make awesome hardware.
"The Germans may have tried to conquer Europe and murder my ancestors, but god damn, do they ever make awesome hardware."
Listen mate. British Empire could have stayed out of Belgium back in '14 and continued to exploit India and China for fun and profit, while Wilhelm would have bled out against the French and Russia or managed to build a railway from Paris to St. Petersburg, innit? Messed it all up, did ya?
"British Empire could have stayed out of Belgium back in '14 and continued to exploit India and China for fun and profit, while Wilhelm would have bled out against the French and Russia..."
That's neither here nor there; I would suggest that the events taking place between 1938 and 1940 make a fairly strong case for my assertion that Germany had, shall we say, ambitious territory acquisition goals. I didn't say that they tried to do it twice - indeed, the aftermath of the Archduck's assassination isn't always all it's quacked up to be.
I find it difficult to sympathise with any issues Dyson the person has when the smarmy git has taken out adverts in the past in which he boasts about how Dyson the firm patents its ideas & technology in order to maintain their exclusivity (ie refuse point blank to licence them to any other firm). Given that colossal missing-the-entire-point-of-the-patent-system, I find myself automatically suspicious of any complaints he has about the patent system as it stands.
"(ie refuse point blank to licence them to any other firm). "
That is what patents are for, to allow an inventor to have a monopoly on the particular invention for a period of time, prohibiting others from using it. A reward, if you will, for being clever enough to invent something seminal.
Get over it.
You're both right. The patents process does permit a patent holder to have a temporary monopoly on a novel idea, in order to exploit it. It also exists so that industry can be brought forward at a faster pace by the (admittedly normally optional) licensing of existing patents to third parties, so that better products can be built on top of existing inventions with appropriate payments to the inventors. As far as I am aware, the only time you'll be fored (as a patent holder) to licence a product is if no-one else makes the product and you keep refusing reasonable offers for the licence.
@AC
Nope, the point is supposed to be that the patent holder gets recognised as the sole licence holder for the idea (and thus a mechanism to get paid for having provided details of a useful idea/solution to a problem) and society/industry benefits from not having to constantly reinvent the wheel by providing an incentive for inventors to share the specifics of their ideas.
Deciding that you're going to patent something and then refuse to licence it to anyone is to specifically Act The Bellend; nobody says that you have to licence your ideas *cheaply* (and certainly I could see justification in eg setting the licence fee such that competitors would be unable to price-match their offerings without cutting into their profit margin). But boasting about how you use the patent system in order to specifically refuse to ever share the solutions you've devised to engineering problems instantly puts you into my Big Book O' Bellends.
"What did vacuum cleaners look like before Dyson ? Answer is they looked nothing like a Dyson"
Depends how closely you look. Stop at the bright colours and Fisher Price shapes, and Dyson's did look different. But step back, and compare an original Dyson to a comparable Hoover upright, and you've still got a beater brush bar stuck on a suction head that rolls along the floor, attached to an upright handle with a dust canister attached.
I doubt many people looked at a Dyson and wondered what it was. And the colours and shapes were simply dsign choices, mostly with limited relevance to the bagless operation. Arguably Dyson cleaners would have been every bit as successful if they'd been bagged models but with the same emphasis on colours and design.
"hidden prior art is occasionally found and ways to design around existing patents identified"
1. If there is prior art you have nothing to protect.
2, If people find a different way to do something they aren't infringing your patent and you don't deserve any money.
That companies don't see it that way is why the patent system desperately needs to be made looser pay, except in unusual circumstances.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
