What happened
A person identifying himself in WhatsApp correspondence as Pieter from MCM Robotics said that MCM had received our enquiry. He supplied indicative robot prices and invited us to share our intended use case and project ideas so that an official quotation could be prepared.
We then supplied our draft Project Scarecrow business plan in that quotation conversation. The document itself carried a confidentiality notice, and we separately wrote: “Please only share these documents confidentially.” We also described the off-grid local AI server intended to support our system.
The response described the project as interesting, confirmed that robodogs could be customised with cameras, LiDAR and powered accessories, and asked for time to obtain current prices and accessories. The screenshots below are presented as the contemporaneous record. Only the personal phone number has been blurred.
The later public material
On 14 September 2026, Maroela Media published a report and Facebook reel about MCM Robotics and agricultural uses for Unitree robodogs. The article quotes Pieter Kemp on repetitive farm patrols, perimeter routes, pumps and dark buildings, live video, LiDAR, control-room software and human decision-making. It also contains detailed model and price information.
The sequence matters. Our quotation exchange and confidential disclosure occurred months before the Maroela Media publication. The screenshots on this page do not visibly establish the exact calendar date, so we are preserving the original conversation for date verification. MCM is now publicly associated with agricultural robot uses that closely overlap with concepts we disclosed for Project Scarecrow. We believe that warrants a clear account of how the later media material was developed. The overlap and chronology raise a serious concern, but do not by themselves prove that our confidential material was copied; some robotic patrol and inspection concepts may also have independent or public origins.
Source: Maroela Media, “Kyk | Dié hond blaf nie, maar het beslis byt”, 14 September 2026; and the associated public Facebook reel.
Why the handling still matters
A supplier invited confidential project detail for a quotation. Good commercial practice is to use that material only for evaluating and pricing the requested supply, restrict internal access, obtain consent before any secondary use, and confirm retention or deletion if the quotation does not proceed. Even where a general idea is not exclusively owned, a detailed confidential plan should not become an undeclared springboard for another business.
South African law is more precise than the phrase “they stole my idea.” CIPC explains that an idea by itself is not protected by copyright; the original written expression may be. Separately, South African courts recognise that misuse of confidential, commercially valuable information can amount to unlawful competition when the necessary facts are proved. In Technical Systems v Feed Chain Industries, the High Court described protectable confidential information as trade-applicable, secret rather than public, and objectively valuable.
Sources: CIPC guidance on copyright and ideas; Technical Systems v Feed Chain Industries [2024] ZAWCHC 204. This summary is general information, not legal advice.
What the current evidence proves—and does not prove
- It proves: we approached MCM as a prospective supplier; MCM requested our intended use case; we supplied our marked draft plan and expressly requested confidentiality; MCM acknowledged our project and discussed customisation.
- Our recorded chronology: our quotation exchange and confidential disclosure occurred months before the media publication. The exact conversation date should be verified from the original WhatsApp export or device, not inferred from the screenshot filenames.
- Independent public fact: on 14 September 2026, the media report quoted MCM on several agricultural patrol and inspection uses.
- It does not yet prove: when the media interview was arranged, whether the plan was distributed internally, whether any confidential element was used, or whether MCM developed the public material independently.
Clarification requested
We ask MCM Robotics to provide a written timeline covering our quotation enquiry, its receipt of and access to our Project Scarecrow material, and the later media interview and publication; identify who received or accessed our document; confirm whether any part of it was shared or used outside quotation preparation; and confirm its present retention or deletion status.
Project Scarecrow remains our working project. We are continuing with our documented, non-lethal-first, human-controlled and vendor-neutral development path.