OT: From BBCR4Today, this morning

moving something from one product sector to another counts as innovation

that's all Dyson did - yet he has full protection for it

tim

Reply to
tim...
Loading thread data ...

Really how come Vax and others also sell cyclone cleaners, plenty on ebay anyway, they even lok very similar.

If I was dyson I'd take them to the cleaners over it.

Reply to
whisky-dave

formatting link
the phrase was co It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age.[2][3]

Reply to
whisky-dave

I've no idea, perhaps they pay the license fee

Dyson did take a violation of his patent to court - and won

tim

Reply to
tim...

It was said by someone wanting to curry public acceptance for nuclear power.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

I don't know the legal situation but the Vax is a very different design to the Dysons, even if both are cyclonic.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

As I said. Written by an idiot.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

I've no doubt he has lots and lots of patents. But like most, there are ways round them.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Don't remember there being much resistance to it at the time.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Which I always found odd, as industrial cyclones were used for dust separation decades before he patented the idea. While it hadn't been applied to household vacuums before, it was hardly new technology or novel application warranting a patent.

His ball-barrow on the other-hand was a good idea, spreading the load much more as it sinks a little and so reducing the chances of bogging down and also reducing the chances of toppling while cornering. However, I assume that either cost or difficulties on rough ground work against it, as the patent has long expired and yet no-one is producing them any more.

SteveW

Reply to
Steve Walker

In article snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes

There wasn't in the 50s. The greens arrived later and sabotaged the whole project.

Reply to
bert

Rubbish. It was said by a Yank general about *fusion*, which did not and does not exist yet as a viable power source on Earth. He imagined that uranium would be expensive and that as deuterium for fusion can be extracted from seawater, fusion as a power source (only 20 years away in the future when he spoke in the 50s) would therefore be cheap.

Reply to
Tim Streater

Think you'll find it managed to do that all by itself.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

But also repeated in the UK by the likes of the then current PM. About fission. And that's the one most likely remembered here.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

the point of issue was:

"can a technology historically used in one product be patented for use in a different product"

and my answer was to show that the answer is yes (sometimes)

tim

Reply to
tim...

you need to take that up with the court involved

tiom

Reply to
tim...

I think apple patented rounded cornmers in windows or something

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Windows ! how dare you, it was the much more important shape of the button icons on phones and later tablets, it just wouldn't be the same with square sharp angled corners. It's like claiming the Earth is cube shaped.

Reply to
whisky-dave

Energy for 3,500,000,000 years! (Something like the half life for uranium. Too bad commercial electricity generation doesn't work by radioactive decay.)

Reply to
Max Demian

Irrelavent.

I think that's the half-life of U238, not U235 (which fissions). You might look up the Oklo fossil reactor in Winky, too.

Reply to
Tim Streater

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.