RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Home based Orbital Gardens, pretty cool lookingCaffeinatedBaco wrote: Hey Kurious1,
Here's a quick possibility: The AI used to operate the entire grow system.
Think of it like this: Consumer drones are new, maybe someone has a less than 20 year old patent on 'drone technology'. If you take that original drone that needed a skilled pilot-operator to fly, hover, follow, land, and keep in proximity of the pilot, that's one type of product. If you now make all those functions automated so any *unskilled* pilot operator can do all the same things, do you have the same product as the one that was patented? I don't think anyone would argue you did.
What constitutes the difference? The thousands, or tens of thousands, of lines of code that take all of those processes and steps required to make a drone fly successfully, along with the new sensors now required to feedback to the drone software it's position, orientation, speed, etc., and make them into a new product that flies itself with minimal operator input. Just because the basis of the product is a drone platform, doesn't mean you have the same product.
SImilarly, if you strip out all the AI from RQB's O.G. 2.0 tech, now you have a grow room that needs to be monitored continuously by humans, needs multiple incursions into, cannot make adjustments independantly, needs constant manual sampling and testing of water levels, nutrient levels, temperature levels, etc., and then needs a human to adjust back into an acceptable zone when limits are reached or exceeded.
So tell me what's the more unique product:
- A bunch of plants spinning around a light in drums that you can stack on each other, -or-
- A bunch of plants growing in an orbiting garden that can self-regulate lighting, temperature, nutrient levels, airflow and orbit rate based on the unique needs of each orbiting garden across 336 pods in an entire facility
I think in your heart you know that what RQB has, is unique of what Roto-Gro claims to be theirs.
Great post! Thank you very much for taking the time to give me some information!
RGI do have what they call "iGrow". It's growing management software of some sort. There's not a lot of information on it though. RQB obviously have shown much more of this to their investors.
RQBs software sounds pretty insane if its as you describe it
I'd like it if folks on here focussed on what RGI are actually going after however. It's the patent which protects their "Tech" of stacking units on top of each other. Here's a snippet from the RotoGro announcement:
"In particular, the Patent protects a stacked rotatable gardening system comprising numerous modular rotatable gardens being stacked vertically (i.e., one on top of the other) and horizontally (i.e., side by side), where each main frame is connected to the main frame of the other modular rotatable garden, forming system pods."
There's no denying RQB have stacked units on top of each other. What it will come down to I believe is how they've done it. If they've come up with a way to do it differently than was on the RotoGro systems bought by George in 2016, then RQB may just be in the clear and possibly even go after RotoGro if they're cleared.
I am on RotoGro's side here, obviously, and part of the reason is because RotoGro have had a lawyer who owns a Canadian law firm which specializes in IP and Patent law on their board of directors since the IPO.
I have a decent knowledge of the company so I welcome any questions from people here who may have concerns. I don't work for RotoGro in case that was going to be someone's question.
Going back to the RQB software - I wonder if it's league above what RGI offer if RGI may look at a "swap". Our Stackable system IP licensing for the RQB software licensing. Maybe there's something in this for both teams
Thanks again for the well written post CaffeinatedBaco