Ocado was originally an AutoStore client and then copied AutoStore's warehouse automation solution.

Based on the timeline of events, they basically copied AutoStore. I'm actually curious what the next lawsuits will bring, but i don't think it's going to be in favor for Ocado.

There was already a preliminary result and while Ocado says it's a win, i think that's a deceiving statement if you actually care to read it.

https://archive.is/LuiMp

> The Norwegian company claimed in U.S. filings that Ocado infringed four patents for the robotic systems. The judge found that, while Ocado used technology covered by three of the patents, those claims failed to fulfill requirements of clearly describing the invention in a way that others can understand.

We'll see how it goes.

It's a huge win for Ocado. The first line of defense when charged with patent infringement is to invalidate the patents themselves. No patents, no patent infringement. So it doesn't matter if they're doing the same thing if they can get the patents invalidated, which it sounds like is the case here.

It isn't a definite conclusion. It still needs to appear before a full committee.

This temporarily one for an injunction did conclude that Ocado is using 3/4 patents. But the injuction was not granted.

Note: not an expert, but I'll probably ask one in patent law for more information to one to check if I'm correct. Because I have some stocks in AutoStore and that included rudimentary analysis of AutoStore vs. Ocado lawsuits without going deep into the actual patents.

This was an absolutely fantastic video, thanks for sharing that. I’ve ordered from Ocado before, but I never thought that the logistics behind it were so different from just a very large warehouse store…

Is that the one that caught fire and they didn't want to use water to put it out because it would harm the robots?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-58190969

Also... As as exercise for the reader, compare the Ocado top-down picker with the Kiva (now Amazon) bottom-up shelf lifter, and then guess which system has a better value-for-money and is faster to deploy.

No, it's not the same warehouse. The article says "The facility in Andover, Hampshire, burnt down [...]" – which is here: https://goo.gl/maps/sKC2oBkL9JJUawuY8

Whereas Tom Scott was at this location: https://goo.gl/maps/H54SKTkumd4dEyam6 (the same outside view of the location is at 0:03 in the video linked above).

Fun fact! There was a fire at the Erith site too: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57883332

Looks like they should have invested in alternative non-water fire suppression technology rather than choosing the "no suppression" option.

From Article linked by parent:

> A Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority report found there was an hour's delay in dialling 999 and staff had turned off the sprinkler system.

A friends company implemented Kiva. It still took many years of planning and implementation.

You're still delivering boxes, jars and cans of ingredients to customers, to cook and prepare food at their home.

There's a lot of waste there: it would be more efficient to just feed people from centralized canteens located near living and work spaces. The problem is that you have sales taxes and tips to add to those kind of meals, plus the wastage of inconsistent demand for the restaurant generally and for individual menu items.

The other big reason for that design is storage density: it trades off fast random access for storage density (since things are all stacked up on top of each other). This makes a lot of sense for last-mile deliveries around densely populated (and thus expensive real-estate) areas. (Though as pointed out, autostore had a very similar concept for a while before).

It really is too bad that they lost their Waitrose deal. The machinery is nothing unless you have a product I want to buy.