8 ms·

That can't possibly be what happened. First to file would not allow Ocado to have patented the concept of the robot sitting above a cell/tote as that was alread

That can't possibly be what happened. First to file would not allow Ocado to have patented the concept of the robot sitting above a cell/tote as that was already part of the system they got and copied/reverse-engineered from AutoStore. Indeed, if what you hypothesized had happened, Ocado would be the poster child for an immediate return to the first-to-invent system as this would be precisely the scenario that critics were warning about: an unscrupulous licensor "stealing" an invention from the actual inventor.

Closi 1y ago
Why can't it? I think you may have slightly misread my post in terms of the single cell aspect. > First to file would not allow Ocado to have patented the concept of the robot sitting above a cell/tote Ocado patented the concept of a robot sitting above a single cell/tote, not the concept of the robot sitting above a cell/tote. AutoStore's initial system was the first to have the robot sitting above a stack of totes, however the robot sat above two cells in it's original design (a 'cantilever design'). The settlement actually means that AutoStore cannot develop a robot sitting above a single cell/tote (note that their blackline robots sit across a 'tote and a bit' because of this - see image https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/autostore-sues-ocado-for-infringing-technology-patents-central-to-the-ocado-smart-platform-853600552.html https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/autostore-sues-oc...). There is lots of historical complexity as with all patent cases, but the AutoStore loss in court doesn't mean that Ocado didn't copy them - it just means that Ocado have been judged to be legally allowed to copy them IMO :) > Ocado would be the poster child [for being] an unscrupulous licensor "stealing" an invention from the actual inventor. They absolutely are the poster child for this in the material handling world! This is widely known in the logistics industry.

Closi 1y ago

Why can't it? I think you may have slightly misread my post in terms of the single cell aspect. > First to file would not allow Ocado to have patented the concept of the robot sitting above a cell/tote Ocado patented the concept of a robot sitting above a single cell/tote, not the concept of the robot sitting above a cell/tote. AutoStore's initial system was the first to have the robot sitting above a stack of totes, however the robot sat above two cells in it's original design (a 'cantilever design'). The settlement actually means that AutoStore cannot develop a robot sitting above a single cell/tote (note that their blackline robots sit across a 'tote and a bit' because of this - see image https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/autostore-sues-ocado-for-infringing-technology-patents-central-to-the-ocado-smart-platform-853600552.html https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/autostore-sues-oc...). There is lots of historical complexity as with all patent cases, but the AutoStore loss in court doesn't mean that Ocado didn't copy them - it just means that Ocado have been judged to be legally allowed to copy them IMO :) > Ocado would be the poster child [for being] an unscrupulous licensor "stealing" an invention from the actual inventor. They absolutely are the poster child for this in the material handling world! This is widely known in the logistics industry.