That's pretty unconvincing. If you have any reputable, objective evidence for the kind of use cases the Dyson approach can handle—that has also been independently verified—please send it along. Otherwise, I conclude there's absolutely nothing to go on and I don't believe for a second the machine you refer to is capable of universally achieving hair detangling.
Correct, it depends on evidence...which hasn't been provided, so no one worth their weight in salt should believe what's been said on that point. I'm sure it works for you, but not convinced it works universally.
I respectfully disagree. I have had one of these Japanese Panasonics in my own collection for many years before Diesoon introduced their Fluffy Cone design. It has been on the market in Japan for seven or eight years, which means it was developed in the years preceding introduction. Panasonic is the innovator here. Dyson is a copy cat.
You're forgetting here that Dyson released hair screw tool with their V15 in 2021.
No no, let's let him defend his claim. I'm genuinely intrigued and the Dyson patents date back years before 2021.
I had the Panasonic nozzle in my collection before the Covid pandemic, so 2019. I bought it soon after they came out in Japan.
Unfortunately, that's not what was asked for, which was the minimum necessary to support the claim convincingly in a fact-checkable way. Do you think you'll be able to provide the evidence required? To be clear, that's an image of the machine and the relevant features of its design in question (conical brush bars), its model number, and evidence of its manufacture date (or that allows it to be determined).
Love, that's his evidence: He had the Panasonic nozzle in his collection before the Covid pandemic, so 2019. He bought it soon after they came out in Japan.
What do you want? I don't have the packaging from that far back. I have had it in my collection so when I saw this Fluffy Cone thing I just laughed because I had the same idea from Panasonic sitting on shelf for six years or so.
We're going to need a notarized declaration of facts, as well as images of the original packaging and receipt, plus GPS tracking showing your trip to the store when you purchased it, and a detailed 3D scan of both the interior and exterior. Go ahead and get it MRI'd while you're at it, then we might believe you.
No, you made a factual claim that's either true or false and on which there's evidence bearing. I've seen no evidence to support your claim that Dyson stole the idea. You've been asked on two occasions (1 and 2) for the evidence that can be fact-checked to support your claim after you claimed you have it in your collection to simply get the evidence from easily and post. Now you ask again what is wanted? It now doesn't look like you can defend your position, which means I'll continue not to believe it and suggest your statement is a falsehood given the evidence to the contrary already available. Did I really need to spell this out again? Do you think you can provide the evidence to support your claim or is this a write-off as predicted and the guy above is going to continue attempt to pettily mock people who simply want to establish what's true in a fact-checkable way? I provide all the evidence for my claims; it's not that hard if the claim is true—because that's how you know to make the claim in the first place. Pulling teeth here...
