Comments on: Slow Progress But High Stakes in iRobot–Robotic FX Tangle

By: Paul Coletta

Paul Coletta — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:44:51 +0000

While I think the articles are objective (just barely), there seems to be no discussion on the actual practicality of how FX could have even begun to conceive this robot based on the personell of their staff. Contrasted to the MIT based staff at IRobot, the FX’ers are bit players. The technologies and egineering in these robots are very complex and Ahed didn’t have the brainpower to pull it off from scratch.

By: Andy Simpson

Andy Simpson — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:29:59 +0000

I’ve also followed the coverage and in a comment to one of your initial stories suggested an FX bias. In that story, you accurately reported something positive that had been said about the FX robot, but you did not point out that what was said was also true about the iRobot version. When I pointed this out in the comment, you promptly modified the story. (I had also overlooked a part of your story that addressed another criticism I had raised.) Based upon your reaction, I concluded that there was no effort to put the thumb on the scale in favor of FX.

Your stories have all been very balanced IMHO. (And I’m an iRobot shareholder and supporter.) This is a difficult topic engineering-wise and legal-wise and you guys are doing a good job trying to translate these topics into understandable stories.

By: Britt Doughtie

Britt Doughtie — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:04:38 +0000

Robert and Wade, Just another note to let you both know that you have many grateful readers out in cyberspace following closely your reporting on the lawsuit and court goings-on. Thanks and please hurry to press today!

By: Robert Buderi

Robert Buderi — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:52:41 +0000

Hi Wright and Nik — Thanks very much for your comments, both of them, because we like constructive criticism as well as positive feedback! We do try very hard to be balanced in our coverage, and experience covering court cases has taught us that things don’t always play out as they might seem at first glance, as Nik says. Wright, this is our sixth story on this case, including providing a very detailed account of Ahed throwing potential evidence out in the dumpster, and others (most recently the same day this one was posted) that chronicled in detail his shredding CD-Roms and erasing his laptop’s hard drive—so we do feel we are providing both sides of this story. In any case, keep reading because we will be back at the courthouse today.

By: Nik

Nik — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:39:18 +0000

Yes, I would like to second the “thanks” for writing these articles. I am a shareholder in IRBT and I feel I may learn more about this comapny from this lawsuit than from analysts, news items etc…

I disagree with Wright that your articles are favorable towards Robotic FX. I think you are being very even handed. Many cases that seem clear cut go the other way because of the way the law is written and the specific evidence (OJ Simpson trial?). Why did IRBT wait 2 years to go after this guy? Does that matter in the lawsuit? I don’t know, as I am not an intellectual property attorney. Anyway, keep up the good work.

By: Chas Doubletree

Chas Doubletree — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:43:40 +0000

It seems like this is a cheap way for larger defense contractors to use Robotic FX as a catspaw to steal lucrative business away from iRobot. Robotics has a huge upside in the future of warfare. My guess is iRobot has done a bad job of greasing palms in the Dept. of Defense and has left themselves vulnerable to getting cut out of the action. Why else would the Dept. of Defense go with an unproven company?

By: wright

wright — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:52:39 +0000

These articles have been fascinating, thank you for writing them.
However, it seems as though there is some spin in Robotic FX’s favor. It could be that you are trying to remain neutral and are, therefore, searching for reasons why Robotic FX may not be in the wrong in this case. Unfortunately, there are not many strong arguments for Robotic FX.
Robotic FX’s argument that you conclude this article with seems irrelevant. Litigation is extraordinarily expensive. Accordingly, no one files suit until there is financial incentive. The counter argument would be: if iRobot thought its IP was possibly being infringed it should have (at least) sent cease and desist letters to the alleged infringer. However, in view of the recent Supreme Court ruling regaring declaratory judgement, this could have been a risky move by iRobot. Thus, there would be no reason for iRobot to take any action against Robotic FX until it was a serious competitor and causing significant damage.
You also seem to be downplaying Robotic FX’s destruction of data. Ahed’s actions are analogous to a murder suspect being seen throwing a gun into a pot of molten lead.