I see your points. I assure you there were drastically new technologies in the track design as well as the internal PCBs, power distribution, payload connections, etc., etc., etc. True, other companies or contractors may have fully developed these ideas, or at very least assisted iRobot. That’s not the point though. If iRobot hires out design work and says anything you develop we own also, then that’s the way it is. Look at the patents. They usually list several people, those from iRobot, and whoever else helped them do it. As others here have suggested in the past, there’s more going on than is being publicly released, or at least that being mentioned in the public. Hopefully, it’ll come up in future court action. At the very least, you can see why it looks so bad for robotic FX to ‘possibly’ have lots of design documents for the packbot, both mechanical and electrical. He apparently had some tracks and wheels, and the a hotplate. Hmm… As for your last question, I can assure that every little aspect of packbot is protected IP. Now, what parts of this case that applies to, I don’t know. However, iRobot has suggest many time that it doens’t need to show that right now, just show that there’s something going on a little fishy. Your last paragraph states that RFX didn’t steal anything. I think you should reconsider that. That’s what these cases are all about, and that statement hasn’t been proven yet. Those that are in the know are fully confident of the opposite being true.

The question really boils down to: are iRobot’s designs so incredibly genius and unique that they can’t possibly be considered common engineering techniques? It may be unique in design, but it is hardly an advancement in technology worthy of patents.

If I recall correctly, Robotic FX didn’t steal any patented technology, but rather manufactured something that looks similar to PacBot and uses designs that were described in a patent filing, but not the topic of the patent itself. So what is the protected IP in this case? How long should it be protected for before becoming commonplace.

Thank you all for your comments.

Maybe I’m missing something. Are you suggesting that Packbot is created with basically ‘off the shelf’ components all slapped together? Then you have to determine what level you stop at. Packbot has custom PCBs in it. Of course, those are just made from off the shelf components (caps, resistors, ICs, etc). So maybe iRobot should have made some of their own ICs for their boards. But then, all ICs are still just made from gates and transistors. So, should all electronics then simple be ‘owned’ by the guys that have the IP on transistors? Hmm… ineresting.

Maybe books’ copyrights should be owned by the guy who invented modern publishing. But then, words and letters were around before that. So, maybe the guy that invented letters? or writing methods? But those are really just language in another form, right? So who owns language? But, language is just spoken or written thoughts, right? So, who owns the idea of a thought? Well, we appear to be in a quandary there.

It’s like saying writing a book isn’t new, so your new book on ‘robots for dummies’ doesn’t have any IP to protect.

If there was Autonomy in either robot, then I would agree to your IP rant, because that software and sensor technology is new.

NO , iRobot is just another Goliath that squishes Davids who spend their own R&D money just to get rejected by the political machine. The military is known to ignore smaller non-standard companies and instead stay with the NGC’s Boeings, GD’s, Qinetic’s and iRobots of the world. Fostering innovation?? Please! iRobot stops fresh ideas or cheaper manufacturing processes (innovation in itself) from getting anywhere.

If RoboticFX stole IP from iRobot – then the injunction has to be granted to protect innovators everywhere in this country. If RoboticFX did not steal IP, Jameel Ahed would have developed his Negotiator in what they call a “white room” with artifacts proving and documenting that he was starting from scratch using his own ideas… especially given his history with iRobot’s Packbot. Instead, he is shown destroying supposed evidence and claims he’s not sure why he wiped his laptop clean and hid it under a bed. To quote a famous justice – I know it when I see it.

From what I remember when taking govenment funding does not preclude you from geting IP protection. However, some govenment funds / contracts can come with restrictions on how much the company can charge in patent licensing fees. As long as iRobot is within the guidelines for the grants, there are OK.

Pay attention to the money they get to further develop the Warrior and ask “Why”.

Obviously, ‘Another Anon’ has never tried to roll out 1000 extremely sophisticated robotics systems for a client as important as the military (of course, neither have I, but iRobot has, and it’s hard to do). When lives depend on something working correctly, you can’t have a 99% success rate with fab and assembly. That’s hard to find among fab and assembly contractors. Then you’d likely have to contract out testing, and testing to mil spec isn’t easy to do. Sure, lots of contractors will be willing to take the money, but keeping track of them and keeping them honest is a hard task.

I’m sure Robotic FX can find willing machining and assembly subcontractors to get the job done.