« The Presidential Debates '04 | Main | Blogging 101 - Blog Competition »
September 30, 2004
Ask Amway About Dyson
By QBlog in
Who is James Dyson? Well he’s a world famous entrepreneur and inventor who developed the top selling Dual Cyclone vacuum cleaner. His autobiography details the struggles and obstacles he overcame while working to bring his revolutionary invention to market. Interestingly Dyson’s book explains that one of his biggest obstacles to success was none other than the Amway Corporation.
I recently got a copy of the book and found the story quite stunning. Dyson paints a picture of a predatory Amway Corporation who tried to steal his invention and used their vast wealth and army of lawyers to fight his attempts to regain control of his invention.
MLM Survivors has a summary of the book that you may want to check out. This little event was definitely not Amway's proudest moment.
Comments
Have had Dyson vacuum for 4-5 yrs now.
Better than Amways (copy). I too thought that the story was amazing. But he (the inventor) has many great ideas that you can see on his website. Idea of his washing machine seems amazing......
cheers
In 1987, Nicholas Stracick, a former baseball umpire and his architect partner Edward Russell, pitched an idea to Disney.
Over the course of several meetings and over 200 documented phone calls, they explained their idea of a sports theme park, showing plans and detailed scale models. In the end, Disney told the two men that they did not want to proceed with the idea.
However, in 1997, Disney opened the Wide World of Sports complex, which Stracick and Russell claimed had 88 similarities with its plans. Believing that their idea had been stolen, they sued Disney for US$1 billion. In August 2000, a Florida jury agreed and awarded them US$240 million in damages.
Cool. So Amway's not the only company that tries to screw people and use their vast wealth and lawyer pool to crush the little guy out of existance.
The difference, Disney doesn't have a majority of employees or shareholders or executives who claim their business is "God's business."
It's not God's business at W/D,
it's Mickey's!
This post reminds me of a campaign ad--short, one-sided and filled with unfounded inferences. ;)
Ambivalent
QBlog wrote: "The difference, Disney doesn't have a majority of employees or shareholders or executives who claim their business is 'God's business.'"
What claim are you making here QBlog?
By claiming that Disney doesn't have a majority of employees or shareholders or executives who claim their business is "God's business." You are suggesting that Amway does has a majority of employees or shareholders or executives who claim their business is "God's business".
Let's assume that you mean that the majority of independent business owners affiliate with Amway claim that Amway is "God's Business".
I have only heard that claim from two different individuals, "Bill Britt and Dexter Yager". My friend has a couple of old Amway tapes where they actually do call the business "God's business" but they have the right to say that if they feel that way, and it by no means represents any type of majority of people involved.
Even if there were several other business owners that might feel that way about Amway, I am sure that there are some people that might feel that way about Disney.
I am surprised that you would make a statement like that QBlog. Do you have any proof to back up your claims? Please back up your statement or take it back, or at least explain it further so that even I can understand what you mean. Thanks.
BTW: I posted the Disney comment because many large corporations have had similar court cases, and it is hard to tell the whole story unless it is heard from both the corporation and the little guy. Usually I stand up for the little guy, but often the corporation is not in the wrong for what they did. In this case, I took the side of the little guy based on the info, but I posted the comment to show that some of America's favorite companies have had similar cases. That's all.
Wow, Qblog.
Do you feel you've just been edified?
You certainly weren't deified.
Chris is obviously mortified.
And he wants you to testify.
Wow. I had a Clear-Trak. It sucked, and not in the way a vacuum should.
I've heard the "God's business", or 'the Godliest business', or "the God-pleasingest business' ad nauseum. Think I've been to a total of about a dozen various 'functions', seminars, and 'AM-FAM get-togethers' (that's the worst- all these people pretending thay're your good friend, when they probably couldn't pick me out of a police line-up, and don't talk about anything but how great their stupid pruducts are and how rich they're gonna be). Heard it at least once each time.
Show me where I made a claim and I'll back it up. You're assuming again.
CK, if you could have had them speak on any topics at the events that you went to, what would you have them speak on and why?
2 of the topics that I would want them to speak about at a conference I went to would be products and income.
I understand that they have to be general to appeal to the whole audience so I wouldn't expect too many specifics on teaching because they can learn that from their upline.
I would expect them to talk about how great the products were and how successful each person could be and have speakers that have achieved high levels in the business tell their story of how they got there.
BTW: I'm not too hot on the Clear-Trak vacuum myself. Quixtar has many competitive priced vacuums that I feel are just as good as the Clear-Trak. Just my opinion.
QBlog wrote: "Cool. So Amway's not the only company that tries to screw people and use their vast wealth and lawyer pool to crush the little guy out of existance.
The difference, Disney doesn't have a majority of employees or shareholders or executives who claim their business is 'God's business.'"
I was just asking for an explanation of this comment. Explain it however you want. You know what I wrote in my last comment so just answer it however you would like to.
BTW: It's "existence" not "existance".
CK wrote:
"'AM-FAM get-togethers' (that's the worst- all these people pretending thay're your good friend, when they probably couldn't pick me out of a police line-up,"
That's been my experience as well. I felt that there was a lot of false intimacy going on.
Can you comment on this please, chris?
Ambivalent
I have emails from my upline telling how God pleasing that business is, even more God pleasing than goiing to mosque (me and my upline both muslims)
Heard this 'God pleasing, God being upline of Jesus' thingy so many times.
Chris wrote:
"What claim are you making here QBlog?"
"By claiming that Disney doesn't have a majority of employees or shareholders or executives who claim their business is "God's business." You are suggesting that Amway does has a majority of employees or shareholders or executives who claim their business is "God's business"."
You have it all wrong Chris. QBlog was not making that claim at all. What he was trying to say was that Bill Britt, Dexter Yager and other leaders, being the top kingpins in the world of quixtar, are the major representation of what the quixtar business opportunity is all about. They are the ones, through their comments and remarks on public platforms, who give the descriptions on the values and ideals of the business that they are all representing, which is subsequently broadcasted out to the masses. Hence, the idea that amway/quixtar is "God's Business" is the perception that most individuals get about the quixtar business, both inside and outside of the opportunity itself. In no way was QBlog trying to infer that any current or former IBOs ever had these same personal viewpoints themselves towards the amway/quixtar business. So if I were you, I would take back my request to QBlog to take back his statements regarding this matter.
Getting back to James Dyson, it's good to hear how he successfully fought back through constant struggling and a "never say die" attitude to rightfully get reimbursed the funds that he was entitled to for Amway stealing his vacuum cleaner invention.
As the quixtar MOs would say "DON'T LET ANYONE EVER STEAL YOUR DREAM".
No wonder the PV was so high for the Cleartrak. I bet one could build a business to Diamond on Clear-trak alone. I bet they would really clean up.
Dave:
Was that a pun?
When a prominent minister gets caught screwing the secretary that's news (for better or worse) because he's put himself in a certain position (or others put him there). When a CEO gets caught screwing the secretary, that's just the way it goes (unless his wife sues him for billions in a divorce).
When corporations try to screw people, like James Dyson, out of the rewards that are due them, that should be punished no matter who's doing the screwing. Disney, GM, Amway, Tyco, AOL, etc. Bad is bad.
However, when a company promotes and nurtures a specific public perception of morality (and specifically right-wing Chrisitian morality), then such wrongdoing is seen not only as wrong but hypocritical as well, just like the adulterous minister.
I made no specific claims that Amway does/did promote and nurture this perception but nevertheless that perception exists. Just like the perception that Disney is run by gay-loviing anti-Christians that exists within the fundamentalist Christian community. Does it represent reality? Well, you be the judge of that.
So, when dealing with the reality of that perception (again, whether warranted or not) people affiliated with that organization must be willing to be more vigilant than most in criticizing and ending abuses because of that perception. Is that fair? I don't know. But it's reality.
See this post to get a better idea of my thoughts about perception and reality:
http://tinyurl.com/5r36j
QBlog wrote:
"Show me where I made a claim and I'll back it up. You're assuming again."
QBlog,
And that's the problem, isn't it? One is forced to make assumptions when there are insufficient facts to make a valid conclusion. And one generally makes the assumptions that the inferences lead toward, even if not necessarily true.
QBlog wrote:
"When corporations try to screw people, like James Dyson, out of the rewards that are due them, that should be punished no matter who's doing the screwing."
Are you claiming that Amway tried to screw James Dyson?
Or are you saying that it's enough that James Dyson raised the perception that he was being screwed, so that was enough?
From your post and the facts given in the linked summary, I don't see enough facts to prove that Amway tried to screw Dyson. I did notice that Dyson had made a contract with Amway, and then when they weren't happy with his progress, Dyson and co. "assumed" that Amway was backing out of the contract. Bad assumption.
Why did Amway settle the case?
-because they wanted to avoid costly litigation and unneccessary delays? maybe
-because they wanted to continue production of their product without claims to the rights of it? possibly
Why did they try to pay Dyson not to publish his book?
-because they rightfully forecast that he would put a negative spin on their behavior which would put their corporation in a bad light? could be
Was Amway proud of the way that it handled this business transaction?
That would depend on answers to the above questions and on a lot more facts not given here.
If you're making the claim that Amway screwed Dyson, please state so specifically with facts.
Ambivalent
chris wrote: "Please back up your statement or take it back, or at least explain it further so that even I can understand what you mean. Thanks."
mlmscam wrote: "In no way was QBlog trying to infer that any current or former IBOs ever had these same personal viewpoints themselves towards the amway/quixtar business. So if I were you, I would take back my request to QBlog to take back his statements regarding this"
well mlmscam, i am not going to take back my request for QBlog to take back his statements regarding this, because he did a good enough job by explaining what he meant. If I would have made the same remarks that QBlog made, but in a pro-quixtar manner, then critics would have hit me up in the same way. But as soon as QBlog is questioned, the critics all jump in.
I appreciated QBlogs comments in response to my request to further explain what he meant.
I will agree that QBlog made no "specific" claims, but if a visitor follows these comments, many would come to the conclusion that when QBlog pointed out that the difference was that Disney doesn't have a majority of employees or shareholders or executives who claim their business is God's business, then it suggests that Amway does.
The main thing is that I wanted to point that out and let QBlog explain what he meant so that I could understand it better. If he was claiming that Amway had a majority of their people claiming that Amway was God's business, then I wanted some form of proof or for him to take that back.
Instead he replied that he had not suggested that, and instead wrote out his thoughts on perception and reality. Pretty good response if you ask me.
Yes. Amway did screw Dyson.
Chris,
Don't make the mistake that many critics make of assuming one person represents the masses.
lol, QBlog, don't worry about it, I think people are a little too uptight on here. I think that it is wrong that Amway did that, just like it is wrong that Disney did what they did, but that wouldn't stop me from buying a product or using a service that either one of them provided.
I think that was the statement I was trying to make when I gave the Disney example.
Ambivalent writes:
"If you're making the claim that Amway screwed Dyson, please state so specifically with facts."
Ambivalent here takes the typical IBO approach of "argue against all the clear cut evidence" to stating his or her viewpoints. Many infamous defense attorneys made quite big names for themselves using this same exact methodology (Johnny Cochran comes to mind here).
Any person with half a brain in their heads could very clearly disseminate that if amway were totally innocent of any wrongdoing, they would not have monetarily settled with Dyson on a huge sum amount. Not only would they have to suffer the lost amount of this settlement, but more importantly, they would also give themselves a bad name from this matter, which is especially damaging for a company that conducts its operations in the limelight of mainstream america, and who constantly preaches the value of developing good, strong honest relationships with those that you do business with.
Chris, I was responding to Ambivalent with his request for a yes or no on whether I thought Amway screwed Dyson.
QBlog wrote:
"Don't make the mistake that many critics make of assuming one person represents the masses."
What I wrote to Chris was my own personal perception on how I was viewing the exchange between him and yourself. My apologies if I was trying to put words into your mouth, although judging from your subsequent posting to Chris, it appears that you and I were both making the same exact point.
Unlike the brainwashed ambots who post here, I can at least admit to saying or doing something that was wrong.
I consider this particular matter finished.
mlmscam - How thoughtful of you to "consider this particular matter finished" while referring to the rest of us as "brainwashed ambots".
I had respect for you based on the quality of your replies, and with comments like this, your respect and credibility start going down in my book.
Chris wrote:
"mlmscam - How thoughtful of you to "consider this particular matter finished" while referring to the rest of us as "brainwashed ambots".
I had respect for you based on the quality of your replies, and with comments like this, your respect and credibility start going down in my book."
:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(
Hey Chris:
Are you the moderator for mlmforums.com? Just wondering.
I think we bought our Clear Trak to reach to 1000 PV. I actually really like it, but it's finally showing some real wear (It's 5 or 6 years old now). I think there is no question, from the info given, that Dyson was the victim of the Amway Corp.
My wife keeps dreambuilding (LOL) about upgrading soon to what I assume is Dyson's vacuum.
About the God comment. I remember the first seminar where a direct said that when we die, God is going to ask us whether we built the Amway business that we had in our hands or not. That one still makes me laugh.
I was just reading Chris's requirements as to what he feels constitutes a qualified critic, and I came across one that made me actually think a little:
"2. Is willing to debate the issues and admit when they are wrong".
Reading the second part of that remark made me all of a sudden realize that I was wrong in referring to Chris as a "brainwashed ambot". Since the company is now online, the appropriate phrase here is "brainwashed quixbot". Sorry about that Chris.
Last night I watched an short info-mercial by Dyson on late night cable. Strange coincidence. It's probably been in rotation for a while and I just hadn't noticed it before.
mlmscam, act how you want, nobody will stop you, but I just think that on a good blog like this, that we shouldn't ruin it with name-calling in the comments. That's all. Just my opinion.
Chris:
Let me know when you're ready to discuss the issues again, rather than constantly pointing accusatory fingers at others.
QBlog wrote:
"Yes. Amway did screw Dyson."
Great--a claim! But what happened to the accompanying facts?
Here are the facts that I got from the summary on mlmsurvivor.com that led me to a more neutral conclusion.
Dyson signed a deal with Amway ("They agreed to it anyway.") In reliance on this deal, one would presume that Amway started investing in production of the product, possibly spending millions of dollars. Amway also advanced money to Dyson, which despite Dyson "assum[ing] Amway was abandoning the project," Dyson did not return to Amway until "the situation was resolved in early 1985."
Although Amway may not have been blameless in this situation (hard to tell from the facts given here), Dyson's conduct was also not without issues.
And since this story is being told from Dyson's viewpoint, I'd have to give the benefit of the doubt to a more neutral position.
I also feel that despite people saying that they want justice, they're willing to overlook it when a big company is involved. The attitude that the big company has deep pockets is a poor one if real justice is sought.
Ambivalent
The facts are in the book. Basically he inked a deal with Amway, he thought they wanted his machine, they apparently changed their minds and then made a version of his machine of their own which violted several of his patents. I'm not sure how you missed that whole aspect of the story but maybe it didn't come through in the excerpts. Buy the book and read it yourself I guess.
You know that stealing patents is wrong right? Where I come from we call that screwing somebody. Maybe where you come from it's called something else.
Whoa! I am researching Dysons because I want to buy a vacuum. I thought the Dysons were great, now its become even more interesting.
I saw a great demo of the new DC 15 Animal here, which really got my attention. James Dyson did a great job.
http://www.powervacs.com/ Click on the "View Demo" Link on the bottom right.
I was in Quixtar at the beginning!
They told me I could not use the Internet and called it Spamming. They shut me down with punitive measures. I was not allowed to do any business for 6 months - ending my career...
Looks like their careers are over now!
Here are the facts:
James Dyson invented, designed, and had built a vacuum cleaner called the "Cyclon" in 1983. I have one.
James Dyson did NOT want to be in the manufacturing business, hence the desire to liscense his technology to a vacuum cleaner manufacturer.
After Amway 'signed the deal', they went with blueprints from Dyson in hand, to Bissell, in Grand Rapids. Bissell said "Yes, we'll make the machine". They did, but NOT to Dyson's specs. Bissell was not given an essential piece to the puzzle (a part called the 'shroud') since James had not invented it yet. This necessitated the need for the Amway's multiple pre-motor filters, destroying the 'no loss of suction' claims.
So, in the words of James Dyson, the Amway "doesn't work properly" compared to a Dyson vacuum cleaner.
If we bear in mind that in 1985, when Amway copied Dyson's design, James was a lone inventor, struggling to make ends meet, and not (as currently) the richest private citizen in Britain, it's easy to understand why Amway would simply scam James, steal his designs, and think they could get away with it (they thought he was too poor to sue them successfully).
Of course, with the settlement of the lawsuit (as well as the successful introduction of James first cyclonic cleaner in Japan) - James had enough money to open Dyson Appliances in 1993. And now is the largest manufacturer of vacuum cleaners in the world.
So we have to wonder, had Amway Corp not stolen James' technology, would James have become so wealthy and successful?
Did the hand of fate not have anything to do with it?
I bet Amway is just kicking themselves for having been so blind to the commercial possibilities of the cyclone. To Date, Dyson has made and sold over 25 million Dyson vacuums. If Amway had not screwed James Dyson, those would be Amway vacuums and not Dysons cleaning the entire earth.
Wow.
I've been looking at these machines. Now I'm kinda interested in this book. Who would have ever thought that Amway would have done something so underhanded.
Posted by: jason | September 30, 2004 11:39 PM