Amazon uses an inventory storage procedure known as 'random stow.' To summarize at a high level, random stow saves resources when stocking Amazon's many DCs which have decentralized inventory frameworks, DCs located around the world in which Amazon has invested billions of cap ex. A phone/PDA with picking software is given to each human, to guide them to each inventory picking job in the DC in the most optimized way. With random stow, which went against the industry orthodoxy when it was rolled out, NO ONE has better-designed and efficient pick/pack/ship retail warehouse processes than Amazon, even in its current human-staffed state. Long ago, they figured out in addition to random stow, in general they did not want picking shelves which required employees to climb ladders. They spent extra cap ex for more low, flat DCs, but saved huge amounts in operating costs afterward. So they are well-positioned for Kiva robots to be integrated into the pick/pack/ship process, and they will no doubt lead the industry here as well. The human costs past/present/and future are not part of the calculus, nor a particular issue for them.
Hi Ciaran,
Great work on the video, it should really help. My only concern is that nowhere in the video is it indicated that if software patents are eliminated, software will still have very strong IP protection via copyright law, even in terms of derivative works.
As I mentioned downstream in a different post, software is not a physical invention, and can be copyrighted, just like music. And both are fully protected in the courts via copyright. That is why Microsoft has not been able to take a copy of Linux (which has no patent protection), slap a GUI on it, and call it their new "multibillion dollar investment in innovation." Copyright law, which the GPL license is based on, prevents even a company as powerful as Microsoft from stealing software, as much as they might want to. So copyright is very powerful protection for IP investment, and includes provisions for close copying in the form of derivatives works laws.
GiMP wrote "What if you built a better mousetrap and began marketing it, but before you had the time to take it off the ground, a large national manufacturer began selling copies of your design? This wouldn't be protected under copyright, but would be covered under patents."
This is a logical fallacy. A physical invention (mouse trap) cannot be copyrighted. Software is not a physical invention, and can be copyrighted, just like music. And both are fully protected in the courts via copyright. That is why Microsoft has not been able to take a copy of Linux (which has no patent protection), slap a GUI on it, and call it their new "multibillion dollar investment in innovation." Copyright law, which the GPL license is based on, prevents even a company as powerful as Microsoft from stealing software. So copyright is very powerful protection for REAL innovation.
jwwjr
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon uses an inventory storage procedure known as 'random stow.' To summarize at a high level, random stow saves resources when stocking Amazon's many DCs which have decentralized inventory frameworks, DCs located around the world in which Amazon has invested billions of cap ex. A phone/PDA with picking software is given to each human, to guide them to each inventory picking job in the DC in the most optimized way. With random stow, which went against the industry orthodoxy when it was rolled out, NO ONE has better-designed and efficient pick/pack/ship retail warehouse processes than Amazon, even in its current human-staffed state. Long ago, they figured out in addition to random stow, in general they did not want picking shelves which required employees to climb ladders. They spent extra cap ex for more low, flat DCs, but saved huge amounts in operating costs afterward. So they are well-positioned for Kiva robots to be integrated into the pick/pack/ship process, and they will no doubt lead the industry here as well. The human costs past/present/and future are not part of the calculus, nor a particular issue for them.
Hi Ciaran, Great work on the video, it should really help. My only concern is that nowhere in the video is it indicated that if software patents are eliminated, software will still have very strong IP protection via copyright law, even in terms of derivative works.
As I mentioned downstream in a different post, software is not a physical invention, and can be copyrighted, just like music. And both are fully protected in the courts via copyright. That is why Microsoft has not been able to take a copy of Linux (which has no patent protection), slap a GUI on it, and call it their new "multibillion dollar investment in innovation." Copyright law, which the GPL license is based on, prevents even a company as powerful as Microsoft from stealing software, as much as they might want to. So copyright is very powerful protection for IP investment, and includes provisions for close copying in the form of derivatives works laws.
jwwjr
GiMP wrote "What if you built a better mousetrap and began marketing it, but before you had the time to take it off the ground, a large national manufacturer began selling copies of your design? This wouldn't be protected under copyright, but would be covered under patents."
This is a logical fallacy. A physical invention (mouse trap) cannot be copyrighted. Software is not a physical invention, and can be copyrighted, just like music. And both are fully protected in the courts via copyright. That is why Microsoft has not been able to take a copy of Linux (which has no patent protection), slap a GUI on it, and call it their new "multibillion dollar investment in innovation." Copyright law, which the GPL license is based on, prevents even a company as powerful as Microsoft from stealing software. So copyright is very powerful protection for REAL innovation. jwwjr