不便外发的段落 | 戴森公司 / Dyson (company)

正文5. 诉讼案 | Lawsuits

文中可能包含无法从中国内地访问的链接。

5.1 安利 | Amway

In 1985, Dyson sued Amway for copyright infringement of a Dyson dual cyclone prototype machine. Dyson claimed that he had sent the prototype machines, drawings, and confidential information to Amway as part of a contract in April 1984. In January 1985, Amway produced the CMS-1000, a machine which was very similar to the Dyson design. Less than a month later, Dyson sued Amway.[74] Dyson and Amway settled the lawsuit in 1991, becoming joint licensees.[75]
【参考译文】1985年，戴森以版权侵犯为由起诉安利，称安利侵犯了其双气旋原型机的版权。戴森声称，他已于1984年4月根据合同将原型机、图纸和机密信息发送给安利。1985年1月，安利推出了CMS-1000，这款机器与戴森的设计非常相似。不到一个月后，戴森便起诉了安利。[74]戴森和安利在1991年解决了这起诉讼，并成为了联合被许可人。[75]

5.2 胡佛 | Hoover

In 2000, Dyson sued Hoover for patent infringement of Hoover's Triple Vortex, which was using cyclonic technology and patents similar to Dyson's Dual Cyclone,[76] Dyson won against Hoover[77] and accepted the settlement offer of £4m plus £2m in legal costs. [78]
【参考译文】2000年，戴森以专利侵权为由起诉胡佛公司，称其Triple Vortex吸尘器使用了与戴森Dual Cyclone相似的气旋技术和专利。[76]戴森赢得了对胡佛的诉讼[77]，并接受了胡佛提出的400万英镑的赔偿以及200万英镑的法律费用。[78]

5.3 Excel Dryer

On 5 December 2012, a lawsuit by hand dryer manufacturer Excel Dryer was filed against Dyson, claiming that Dyson's advertising comparing the Airblade to the Excel Dryer Xlerator was deceptive.[79] Dyson's advertisements stated that the Xlerator produced twice as much carbon dioxide, was worse for the environment, and cost more to operate than the Airblade. Excel Dryer claimed that Dyson was falsifying its comparisons by submitting a 20-second dry time for the Xlerator to the Materials Systems Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, rather than Excel Dryer's tested 12 second dry time, thus inflating energy consumption figures in the Airblade's favour.[needs update]
【参考译文】2012年12月5日，手烘干机制造商Excel Dryer对戴森提起诉讼，声称戴森在广告中将Airblade与Excel Dryer Xlerator进行对比具有欺骗性。[79]戴森的广告声称，Xlerator产生的二氧化碳量是Airblade的两倍，对环境更有害，且运营成本也更高。Excel Dryer声称，戴森通过向麻省理工学院材料系统实验室提交Xlerator 20秒的烘干时间（而非Excel Dryer经测试的12秒烘干时间）来伪造对比结果，从而夸大了Airblade的节能效果。[需要更新]

5.4 LG

In October 2015, LG sued Dyson in Australia over an advertisement claiming the V6 vacuum to have "twice the suction power of all cordless vacuums." LG stated their vacuum Cord Zero Cyking provides 200 watts of maximum suction power, twice that of the Dyson V6.[80] LG dropped the lawsuits after Dyson said it would accept LG Electronics' request. The British company said it would remove two advertisement claims – "The most powerful cordless vacuums" and "Twice the suction power of any cordless vacuums" – from all electronics outlets in Australia by December 2015.[81]
【参考译文】2015年10月，LG在澳大利亚起诉戴森，原因是戴森的一则广告声称V6吸尘器的“吸力是所有无线吸尘器的两倍”。LG表示，他们的Cord Zero Cyking吸尘器最大吸力为200瓦，是戴森V6的两倍。[80]在戴森表示将接受LG电子的请求后，LG撤回了诉讼。这家英国公司表示，将在2015年12月之前从澳大利亚所有电子产品销售点撤下两项广告声明——“最强大的无线吸尘器”和“吸力是任何无线吸尘器的两倍”。[81]

In November 2017, Dyson took legal action against LG in South Korea for false advertisement of its Cord Zero A9 cordless vacuum cleaner. Dyson claimed the ads exaggerated the vacuum's performance with statements such as "rotation speed of the motor ... 16 times faster than that of a jet engine" and could be construed as misinforming users.[82] The court dismissed the suit in April 2018, stating the LG's ad was based on test results generated through objective means at reliable institutions and that no evidence was found that proved LG had intentionally made false or exaggerated claims.[83]
【参考译文】2017年11月，戴森在韩国对LG提起了法律诉讼，指控其无线吸尘器Cord Zero A9存在虚假广告。戴森声称，广告中的说法夸大了吸尘器的性能，如“电机转速……比喷气发动机快16倍”，并可能误导用户。[82]2018年4月，法院驳回了这起诉讼，称LG的广告是基于在可靠机构进行的客观测试结果，且没有发现任何证据表明LG故意做出虚假或夸大的声明。[83]

5.5 Qualtex

In 2006, Dyson sued the parts manufacturer Qualtex for copyright and unregistered design right infringement, for creating and selling deliberate imitations of Dyson's original vacuum cleaner parts. Dyson was seeking to prevent the sale of spare parts made by Qualtex to fit and match Dyson vacuum cleaners. The Qualtex parts in question were intended to resemble closely the Dyson spares, not least as they were visible in the normal use of the vacuum cleaners.[84] The Chinese manufacturer that produced certain parts for Qualtex was found to have copied the visual design of some of Dyson's spare parts. Following the victory, £100,000 was donated to the Royal College of Art to help young designers protect their designs.[85]
【参考译文】2006年，戴森以版权和未注册设计权侵权为由起诉零部件制造商Qualtex，指控其故意制造和销售戴森原装吸尘器零部件的仿制品。戴森试图阻止Qualtex生产销售与戴森吸尘器相匹配的零部件。有关Qualtex零部件旨在非常接近戴森原装零部件的外观，因为它们在吸尘器正常使用过程中是可见的。[84]经调查发现，为Qualtex生产某些零部件的中国制造商抄袭了戴森某些原装零部件的外观设计。在胜诉后，戴森向英国皇家艺术学院捐赠了10万英镑，以帮助年轻设计师保护他们的设计。[85]

5.6 三星 | Samsung

In August 2013, Dyson sued Samsung Electronics over claims Dyson's company's steering technology was infringed.[86] The product that was targeted, Samsung's "Motion Sync", allegedly infringed the design of a steering mechanism for cylinder cleaners, patented by Dyson in 2009. It describes a way to allow a vacuum cleaner to spin quickly from one direction to another on the spot, and to follow the user's path rather than just being dragged behind, in order to prevent the vacuum getting snagged on corners.[87] But three months after it filed the lawsuit, Dyson voluntarily dropped the litigation as Samsung presented prior art, which it maintained belonged to Samsung.[88] Samsung filed a counter suit for £6 million for compensation for hurting Samsung's corporate image.[89]
【参考译文】2013年8月，戴森起诉三星电子，指控三星电子侵犯了戴森公司的转向技术专利。[86]被指控的产品是三星的“Motion Sync”，据称侵犯了戴森在2009年获得的筒式清洁器转向机构设计专利。该专利描述了一种方法，允许吸尘器在原地快速旋转方向，并跟随用户的路径移动，而不仅仅是被拖在后面，以防止吸尘器在角落处被卡住。[87]但在提起诉讼三个月后，戴森自愿撤回了诉讼，因为三星提供了在先技术，并坚称该技术属于三星。[88]三星提起反诉，要求赔偿600万英镑，以弥补对三星企业形象造成的损害。[89]

5.7 SharkNinja

In 2014, Dyson sued SharkNinja for patent infringement, but after four years courts ruled the patents had not been infringed.[90]
【参考译文】2014年，戴森起诉SharkNinja侵犯专利权，但四年后，法院裁定并未发生专利侵权行为。[90]

5.8 Vax

In 2010, Dyson launched legal action against rival manufacturer Vax, claiming the design of its Mach Zen vacuum cleaner is an infringement of the registered design of its first "bagless" Dyson cylinder vacuum DC02, which dates back to 1994. Dyson also claimed the Chinese-owned rival had "flagrantly copied" Dyson's iconic design.[91] However, the court backed an earlier decision which rejected Dyson's claims,[92] as the two designs did not produce "the same overall impression" on the informed user. The courts held that the two cleaners were "different designs", the Dyson cleaner being "smooth, curving and elegant", the Vax cleaner being "rugged, angular and industrial".[93]
【参考译文】2010年，戴森对竞争对手Vax提起法律诉讼，声称其Mach Zen吸尘器的设计侵犯了戴森首款“无袋式”筒式吸尘器DC02的注册设计，该设计可追溯到1994年。戴森还声称，这家中国竞争对手“公然抄袭”了戴森标志性的设计。[91]然而，法院支持了之前驳回戴森主张的裁决，[92]因为这两款设计并未给知情的用户留下“相同的整体印象”。法院认为这两款吸尘器是“不同的设计”，戴森吸尘器“光滑、曲线优美且优雅”，而Vax吸尘器则“坚固、棱角分明且工业感十足”。[93]

正文6. 争议 | Controversies

文中可能包含无法从中国内地访问的链接。

6.1 关于外国学生的批评 | Criticisms regarding foreign students

In March 2011, James Dyson reportedly said in an interview for The Sunday Times that British universities were allowing Chinese nationals to study engineering and spy on the departments where they were working, enabling them to take technology back to China after completing their studies.[94][95][96][97] In the interview he was quoted as saying that "Britain is very proud about the number of foreign students we educate at our universities, but actually all we are doing is educating our competitors. [...] I've seen frightening examples. Bugs are even left in computers so that the information continues to be transmitted after the researchers have returned home."[96][98] David Willetts, the government minister responsible for British universities, said he would thoroughly investigate the statement provided by James Dyson.[94] He has also criticised the Chinese authorities for failing to act on patent infringements.
【参考译文】2011年3月，据《星期日泰晤士报》报道，詹姆斯·戴森在接受采访时表示，英国大学允许中国公民学习工程学并监视他们工作所在的部门，让他们在完成学业后将技术带回中国。[94][95][96][97]据报道，他在采访中表示：“英国非常自豪于我们大学所培养的外国学生数量，但实际上我们只是在为我们的竞争对手提供教育。[...] 我见过一些可怕的例子。研究人员回国后，计算机中甚至留有漏洞，以便信息继续传输。”[96][98]英国大学事务大臣戴维·威利茨表示，他将彻底调查詹姆斯·戴森的说法。[94]他还批评中国当局未能就专利侵权行为采取行动。

6.2 就版权问题与中国进行游说 | Lobbying on copyright issues with China

In December 2011, The Independent reported that Bell Pottinger executive Tim Collins had been filmed by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism saying that David Cameron had raised a copyright issue with Chinese premier Wen Jiabao on behalf of Dyson Limited "because we asked him to".[99][100]
【参考译文】2011年12月，《独立报》报道称，调查新闻局拍摄到贝尔·波廷格公司高管蒂姆·柯林斯表示，戴维·卡梅伦代表戴森有限公司向中国总理温家宝提出了版权问题，“因为我们要求他这么做”。[99][100]

6.3 指控汽车技术工业间谍活动的诉讼 | Suit alleging industrial espionage on motor technology

In 2012, Yong Pang, an engineer specialist in electric motors, was accused of stealing Dyson's digital motor technology which was a part of future product development projects.[101] The motors, in development over 15 years, incorporated microchip "digital impulse technology" to spin at 104,000 rpm in order to draw high volumes of air through the appliance, and were not licensed to any other companies.[102] Yong Pang and his wife Yali Li allegedly set up a front company "ACE Electrical Machine Design" to receive payments of £11,650 from Bosch while Pang was working for Dyson.[103] Dyson claimed that trade secrets were passed to Bosch's Chinese motor manufacturer.[104][needs update]
【参考译文】2012年，电机工程师专家雍庞被指控窃取戴森的数字电机技术，该技术属于未来产品开发项目的一部分。[101]这些电机历经15年研发，采用微芯片“数字脉冲技术”，能够以每分钟104,000转的速度旋转，以吸入大量空气，且没有授权给任何其他公司。[102]雍庞和他的妻子李亚丽据称在雍庞为戴森工作期间，设立了一家“ACE电气机械设计”掩护公司，从博世公司收取了11,650英镑的款项。[103]戴森声称商业秘密被泄露给了博世的中国电机制造商。[104][需要更新]

6.3+1 西门子和博世的能源要求指控 | Siemens and Bosch energy requirements allegations

In 2015, Dyson charged that Siemens and Bosch vacuums were using a sensor that sent signals to its motor to increase its power while the machine sucked up dust remnants, making them appear more competent during European Union (EU) efficiency tests. Because tests are conducted in dust-free labs, Dyson claimed that this gave an unfair reading, because in a real home environment the machines used much more power. Dyson said both brands have "capitalized on loopholes" found within the EU regulations to be granted an AAAA energy consumption rating, when actual domestic use showed they performed similarly to an "E" or "F" rating. Dyson issued proceedings against Bosch in Netherlands and France, and against Siemens in Germany and Belgium.[105]
【参考译文】2015年，戴森指控西门子和博世吸尘器使用了一种传感器，该传感器向电机发送信号以增加其功率，从而在机器吸收灰尘残留物时，使它们在欧洲联盟（EU）的效率测试中表现得更出色。由于测试是在无尘实验室中进行的，戴森声称这给出了不公平的读数，因为在真实的家庭环境中，这些机器消耗了更多的电力。戴森表示，这两个品牌都“利用了欧盟法规中的漏洞”，获得了AAAA能耗等级，但实际家庭使用表明，它们的性能与“E”或“F”等级相似。戴森在荷兰和法国对博世提起了诉讼，在德国和比利时对西门子提起了诉讼。[105]

However, BSH's Hausgeräte, which makes household appliances under the Bosch and Siemens brands[106] explained that many of its machines contain "intelligent sensor technology" to avoid loss of suction, which control the vacuum cleaner motor automatically.[107] After weeks of court proceedings, Dyson lost the court battle against Bosch; the courts in the Netherlands decided that Dyson accusations were baseless.[108]
【参考译文】然而，博世-西门子家电集团（BSH Hausgeräte）旗下生产博世和西门子品牌家用电器的公司[106]解释说，其许多机器都装有“智能传感技术”，以避免吸力损失，并自动控制吸尘器电机。[107]经过数周的法庭诉讼，戴森在与博世的诉讼中败诉；荷兰法院裁定戴森的指控毫无根据。[108]

6.5 戴森起诉欧盟委员会 | Dyson suit against European Commission

Until 2017, European Union regulations had required vacuum cleaners be tested when empty, a ruling which greatly favoured bagged vacuum cleaners. Dyson sued the European Commission, resulting in a judgement requiring testing be done under normal usage conditions.[109][110]
【参考译文】直到2017年，欧盟规定要求在吸尘器为空时进行测试，这一裁决极大地有利于袋式吸尘器。戴森起诉了欧盟委员会，导致判决要求在正常使用条件下进行测试。[109][110]