Runway Finder Shutting Down [Archive] - Page 2

jtrollin

12-22-2010, 07:41 AM

Our guardians are asleep...tired from reading their balance sheets.

I do not recall in the AOPA or EAA membership guide where they list as a benefit to fight on behalf of software applications that we might or might not use who are being sued. If you do not like AOPA and or the EAA then do not join them, but to bash them for not doing something that is not really in their charter to do is irresponsible. both AOPA and EAA continue to fight on my behalf every day and I am happy to pay the small membership fees to get that lobbing power.

While I will truly never use a flightprep tool because of what they are doing, I do not blame AOPA or the EAA for not picking up the fight as it is not their fight.

esjacoby77

12-22-2010, 07:46 AM

Is there a boycot flightprep facebook group we can all start to join yet?
I just searched "flightprep" on facebook and a couple pages came up. One also has links to an online petition.

MartySantic

12-22-2010, 09:56 AM

A very good dissertation on the Flightprep/RunwayFinder issue.

http://bit.ly/dN6ecs

MartySantic

12-22-2010, 10:06 AM

I do not understand the logic that EAA and AOPA should be fighting this battle for RunwayFinder. EAA and AOPA both have online flight planning software that is available to members for free, and as far as I know are continuing to offer these tools. It is not their job to protect aviation businesses, but to protect us as pilots and builders. By continuing to offer their tools to us for free as members, it seems like they are fighting on our behalf as they should.

The EAA and AOPA should NOT wait, they should become involved now. FlightPrep approached both the EAA and Jeppesen/AOPA (and FlightAware) and told them they were infringing. ALL told FlightPrep to pound sand. Both organizations are chartered to protect the interests of the GA community. This is such an issue!

It would be **** nice to see the EAA and the Boeing/Jeppesen/AOPA lawyers sitting at the defendant's table along the side of Dave.

John Clark

12-22-2010, 10:13 AM

A very good dissertation on the Flightprep/RunwayFinder issue.

http://bit.ly/dN6ecs

Thanks for posting that Marty, it confirms some of my thoughts. As someone said early in this thread, FlightPerp's motto should be, "If you can't innovate, litigate."

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

RVbySDI

12-22-2010, 11:25 AM

If anyone is interested, below is the link to sign a petition to boycott flight prep.

http://boycottflightprep.com/

RBD

12-22-2010, 11:50 AM

If anyone is interested, below is the link to sign a petition to boycott flight prep.

http://boycottflightprep.com/

Interesting note: flightprepsucks.com was registered on 12.16. A site isn't up yet, but the domain is registered. Seeing the wave of resentment build, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Flight Prep didn't buy it themselves so that nobody else could have it.:eek:

jtrusso

12-22-2010, 11:55 AM

so I replaced it and added to it. Unbelievable arrogance!

Not only was my post on their facebook wall removed, I can't add another one anymore.

While my post was definiltey not supportive of their actions, it was in no way accusing or rude. I said I didn't agree with their enforcement of their patent and so I would no longer support their products but either purchasing a subscription or using their free online planner. I also asked if they could explain how Runwayfinder was infringing on their patent since it was using the Google Maps API and government sectional charts. Both of those posts were removed.

Join the Boycott FlightPrep! facebook group. I've included a link to the petition. Please join and post any information pertitant to FlightPreps ongoing attack on the aviation community.

n981ms

12-22-2010, 12:25 PM

As I am sure you are aware, FlightPrep has caused multiple FREE online sites to shut down with what many believe to be a dubious patent. Regardless of which side you may be on, FlightPrep is now the subject of the ire of pilots across the nation. I request you remove their products from your catalog. I do not think they will be selling anyway given the posts I have read around the web. Please support the "little guys" (us, the pilots) in general aviation by telling FlightPrep to hit the road.

Peterk

12-22-2010, 01:20 PM

I do not recall in the AOPA or EAA membership guide where they list as a benefit to fight on behalf of software applications that we might or might not use who are being sued. If you do not like AOPA and or the EAA then do not join them, but to bash them for not doing something that is not really in their charter to do is irresponsible. both AOPA and EAA continue to fight on my behalf every day and I am happy to pay the small membership fees to get that lobbing power.

While I will truly never use a flightprep tool because of what they are doing, I do not blame AOPA or the EAA for not picking up the fight as it is not their fight.

FlightPrep advertises in AOPA's magazine each month while it "continues to fight on your behalf". Funds from the organization you dislike are supporting the fight on your behalf on a daily basis. Now I guess I'm not only irresponsible but confused as well.

MartySantic

12-22-2010, 06:44 PM

The moderators should make this thread a STICKY until resolved.

Sam Buchanan

12-22-2010, 08:12 PM

The moderators should make this thread a STICKY until resolved.

Why? The thread is averaging 20 posts/day. ;)

MartySantic

12-22-2010, 08:29 PM

Why? The thread is averaging 20 posts/day. ;)

Because the results will be PRECEDENT setting! Do it as a favor to Doug Reeve's, not me. He was one the original posters. Enough or do you need more?

[ed. I would prefer this not be a sticky all the same. dr]

John Clark

12-22-2010, 08:55 PM

FlightPrep advertises in AOPA's magazine each month while it "continues to fight on your behalf". Funds from the organization you dislike are supporting the fight on your behalf on a daily basis. Now I guess I'm not only irresponsible but confused as well.

I'm not confused. The AOPA Pilot sells advertising to cover costs and provide income for the organization. Last year the AOPA earned 11.1 million from selling advertising in their publications. In the classic model of publishing a magazine or newspaper there exists a "wall" between advertising sales and the editorial side. I am amused that AOPA is collecting something around $12,000 a month from Flight Prep for a 1/2 page ad. All the better to help AOPA fight on our behalf. If Flight Prep makes it into the editorial side, I will will protest loudly, but I really doubt that it will happen.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

Phil

12-22-2010, 09:13 PM

Raden

12-23-2010, 02:01 AM

For those that were using aviation maps on the Android with the rmaps application, you're app no longer works.

All aviation maps have been removed within rmaps - but they might have been using someone elses too (such at RF).

Just another data point I wanted to provide on the killed app list.

Phil

Ok now I'm mad... rmaps was perfect for a quick glance at ctaf freq ect when I was away from my computer and didn't have a sectional handy...

How can you claim you own the intelectual rights to a government map sent electronically through the internet... (no need for an answer)

Has anyone heard if Weathermeister is going to be next on the hit list?

Branden
RV-8 empennage
Flying C182 (I get to carry the BBQ, stove, and ice chest when camping)

eric_marsh

12-23-2010, 06:38 AM

I'm not familier with rmaps. Did they just provide government charts in a viewer? If so, how would that conflict with the claimed patent?

I've been working for a while on an iPhone/iPad app that provides sectional that can be viewed from the air without an internet connection and if the device is jailbroken can use a GPS dongle. I wonder if I have to worry about this jerk.

MartySantic

12-24-2010, 03:08 PM

For those that were using aviation maps on the Android with the rmaps application, you're app no longer works.

All aviation maps have been removed within rmaps - but they might have been using someone elses too (such at RF).

Just another data point I wanted to provide on the killed app list.

Phil

Have used the same Android app for the quick info look. Sadly, it is also gone. This is getting to be ridiculous.

From a recent Twitter post. It may become true!!

"Could @FlightPrep be the first aviation vendor to require bodyguards at aviation trade show events? Can't imagine they'd be welcome anymore."

Capflyer

12-24-2010, 03:52 PM

Just heard on the radio that NORAD is tracking Santa but he's heavier than usual. Apparently he's flying over gross with sacks full of coal for the Flight Prep stockings.

scard

12-24-2010, 03:59 PM

Just heard on the radio that NORAD is tracking Santa but he's heavier than usual. Apparently he's flying over gross with sacks full of coal for the Flight Prep stockings.

Perfect! I hope Santa makes it all the way for his delivery. I also hope he doesn't have too rough a landing on a particular lawyer's roof with his heavy load!

Bevan

12-24-2010, 06:18 PM

good thing that Santa's flight planning requirement's don't require online flightplanning services. Otherwise or a lot of little ones (and big ones too) may not have anything in their stockings this year. :eek:

Bevan

Peterk

12-24-2010, 06:42 PM

I could be wrong but it seems the patent does not apply to route planning software that operates on a chart that you have already downloaded...such as most of the Apple Apps where you have to cache charts first. Operations like Runway Finder were on-line charts which used your requested routing, not a chart that you had downloaded.

This of course does not minimize the evil of software patents and I support Dave 100% and look forward to the appearance of FlightPrep at any public gathering. But it might explain why some flight planning like Foreflight can continue while others cannot.

hevansrv7a

12-24-2010, 09:46 PM

The impression I get from this thread is that the overwhelming majority of VAF subscribers oppose, in principle, software patents, view FlightPrep as wrong, bullying and evil, etc.

I am posting this so that the thread contains at least one item in defense of a different view. I won't go into detail because you can read a well made case on the FlightPrep website if you chose to. I urge you to do so.

Intellectual property, in my opinion, is just as deserving of patent protection as any other invention. Patents and copyrights are (implied) in the original U.S. Constitution. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

You may want to argue that the patents in this case were wrongly awarded in this case but that is not the same issue and the proper place for its resolution is in litigation, not a forum. There is much law, both statutory and case, which applies.

I won't be responding to any arguments on this because my purpose is not to convince anyone. My purpose is to ensure that VAF members don't appear monolithic in these viewpoints (which have nothing to do with RV's).

John Clark

12-24-2010, 10:01 PM

Here is a little free enterprise in action:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=66482
"Free and patent free."

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

plehrke

12-25-2010, 05:14 AM

Intellectual property, in my opinion, is just as deserving of patent protection as any other invention. Patents and copyrights are (implied) in the original U.S. Constitution. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

You may want to argue that the patents in this case were wrongly awarded in this case but that is not the same issue and the proper place for its resolution is in litigation, not a forum. There is much law, both statutory and case, which applies.

Totally agree that intellectual property has the right to be protected and that this forum can not adequately debate the issue. I deal with it everyday at my day job. The rub is that larger companies are getting vague patents and then threaten litigation to drive the small entrepreneur out of business just because he does not have enough cash to fight the lawsuit. Business by litigation is getting far too common these days. Heck litigation in general is off the chart and becoming a principle component of product and service cost.

N520TX

12-25-2010, 07:40 AM

I think the fridge magnet would make a nice stocking stuffer.

Plenty of different items to choose from though:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flightprep - then select "store" on the top row of tabs.

A bit pricey in single quantity - might need to organize a 'group buy' ;o)

WenEng

12-25-2010, 09:01 AM

Just adding that (IMHO) post to this discussion is indeed asking for quick and strong responses. You have indeed expressed your view. Thank you. Now if any reader is doing business with FlightPrep they can (and should IMHO) send the clearest message to the owners by cancelling any further spending with that company. Whether they prove to be legally correct in their action or not, their action in my humble opinion warrants comparable action by the marketplace. Their action is not right. I own my bucks and I choose not to spend any of them on Flightprep because I don't like that company or what it is trying to stand for. Period. The marketplace will dictate whether Flightprep management should alter their behavior. Its that simple. Don't need to be a lawyer to understand that. Merry Christmas.:D

hevansrv7a

12-25-2010, 09:18 AM

According to Wikipedia, the subject is by no means as clear as has been stated above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convent ion

Blue Lion

12-25-2010, 04:25 PM

Regardless of right or wrong. Holding a valid patent or not, in the end it's all about how FlightPrep has been conducting themselves. There are other ways to treat your potential clients.

Here is someone who IMHO has the best interest of GA at heart (while still making a profit of course!)

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=66482&page=2

Jamie

12-25-2010, 04:44 PM

Snowflake

12-25-2010, 11:14 PM

How does their litigation promote the progress of science or useful arts?
Go back a few steps. Patents are issued as an incentive for people to develop new technology without fear of the cost of that development being wasted as the next person to come along just appropriates the solution and starts selling it.

If you have received a patent for something you developed, and someone else comes along and wants to sell something competing, you get to take that person to court. If you don't, then there's no point in having patents in the first place.

In this case, FP believes their patent covers what RF and others were doing. It has nothing to do with promoting science or the arts at this point. *IF* their patent is valid, then they've already done the promotion by developing the product in the first place. Now they're just defending their right to do it exclusively for a while.

All that begin said, it sounds like there may be enough prior art to strike down the FP patent. I don't know what's involved in doing that, but it sounds like RF is working on it.

bhassel

12-26-2010, 08:11 AM

Jamie

12-26-2010, 08:34 AM

In this case, FP believes their patent covers what RF and others were doing. It has nothing to do with promoting science or the arts at this point. *IF* their patent is valid, then they've already done the promotion by developing the product in the first place. Now they're just defending their right to do it exclusively for a while.

Science and technology are not advanced if the 'invention' is completely obvious to any person 'having ordinary skill in the art'. If what FP did was so ingenious that it deserved a patent, how did Dave, working on his own in his spare time easily develop a competing product? Not only he, but Skyvector, Navmonster, etc.

You see, it's not about inventing anything. This is all like the Homestead Act with people rushing to scoop up obvious patents. FP didn't invent on-line flight planning. Heck, they weren't even the first. They used patent law trickery to get their patent backdated.

How about we reference actual patent law (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_103.htm) here:

(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.

I have no idea why the courts simply gloss over this statute.

Snowflake

12-26-2010, 11:15 AM

You see, it's not about inventing anything. This is all like the Homestead Act with people rushing to scoop up obvious patents. FP didn't invent on-line flight planning. Heck, they weren't even the first. They used patent law trickery to get their patent backdated.
You're still mixing up two separate issues here... One, whether FP's patent is valid or not (I think we all agree it isn't, but that still needs to be proven in court), and two, whether inventing something is enough to get a patent for it.

Remember, their patent isn't just for online flight planning. It also incorporates drawing a track on an online map, and other features. If they were the first to put all those features together, the sad reality is that they may deserve the patent. I hope not.

Showing that their invention was obvious to someone skilled in the art is extremely difficult after the fact, and again will probably require a court to settle.

Danny7

12-26-2010, 11:18 AM

Businesses can't stay in business if people don't buy anything from them. People can't keep a job if people won't buy anything from the businesses they work for.

The modern tar and feather...of course sometimes the old fashion tar and feather would be an incentive too! ;)

Bob

Sure they can stay in business. that model is exactly what google does with its free search engine, and many of the other "free" software programs.

this book describes it http://www.amazon.com/Free-Future-Radical-Chris-Anderson/dp/1401322905

Sid Lambert

12-26-2010, 07:29 PM

If this patent were for say an algorithm that found the shortess route to visit each airport in a state or even code that did something cool like vectorizing FAA charts then we wouldn't even have this thread. This isn't an IP issue like an ex-employee that started his own competing company. This seems like a clear cut case of the big guy shafting the little guy because he can. We need patents for advances in many areas but this one is like saying Google can't show a map that has 2 coordinates near airports and calculate the distance. This in not inventive, **** it's not even creative.

I appreciate the devils advocate role that some have played here as I usually enjoy playing the role but I feel the acts of FP are indefensible. It's sad that this has to go to court and even worse that it stands a chance of holding up.

JHines

12-26-2010, 09:10 PM

Science and technology are not advanced if the 'invention' is completely obvious to any person 'having ordinary skill in the art'. If what FP did was so ingenious that it deserved a patent, how did Dave, working on his own in his spare time easily develop a competing product? Not only he, but Skyvector, Navmonster, etc.

You see, it's not about inventing anything. This is all like the Homestead Act with people rushing to scoop up obvious patents. FP didn't invent on-line flight planning. Heck, they weren't even the first. They used patent law trickery to get their patent backdated.

The patent issued from a "divisional" application. The parent filing had to exist in the first place (i.e. in 2001) for the divisional to even be able to exist. That's not "back dating trickery", it's a common practice, it happens all the time. In fact, it's extremely common for the patent office to divide up what the applicant thinks is one invention into two, three, or even 10 inventions. If you want to cover those inventions with patents, you have to file divisional applications.

How about we reference actual patent law (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_103.htm) here:

I have no idea why the courts simply gloss over this statute.

Courts don't gloss over it. You could fill a room with the court decisions parsing claims in excruciating detail to try to determine what is obvious. The patent office by necessity can't take forever to examine every case and sometimes they miss the mark, being either too strict or too lax.

As an active patent attorney I can tell you the pendulum has already swung the other way at the patent office. It is much more difficult to get any kind of "software business method" application through the office now.

RV7AV8R

12-26-2010, 09:38 PM

[QUOTE=
As an active patent attorney I can tell you the pendulum has already swung the other way at the patent office. It is much more difficult to get any kind of "software business method" application through the office now.[/QUOTE]

I figured you were a patent attorney :) I agree lately it seems they claim obviousness for everything, making it hard to get claims allowed.

Peterk

12-26-2010, 09:55 PM

The patent issued from a "divisional" application. The parent filing had to exist in the first place (i.e. in 2001) for the divisional to even be able to exist. That's not "back dating trickery", it's a common practice, it happens all the time. In fact, it's extremely common for the patent office to divide up what the applicant thinks is one invention into two, three, or even 10 inventions. If you want to cover those inventions with patents, you have to file divisional applications.

Courts don't gloss over it. You could fill a room with the court decisions parsing claims in excruciating detail to try to determine what is obvious. The patent office by necessity can't take forever to examine every case and sometimes they miss the mark, being either too strict or too lax.

As an active patent attorney I can tell you the pendulum has already swung the other way at the patent office. It is much more difficult to get any kind of "software business method" application through the office now.

As an active patent attorney, what is your take on the attempts to invalidate this particular patent?

petehowell

12-26-2010, 10:46 PM

Help defray costs.....

Follow the link (http://blog.runwayfinder.com/2010/12/26/defense-fund/)

BSwayze

12-27-2010, 03:17 AM

You're still mixing up two separate issues here... One, whether FP's patent is valid or not (I think we all agree it isn't, but that still needs to be proven in court), and two, whether inventing something is enough to get a patent for it.

Remember, their patent isn't just for online flight planning. It also incorporates drawing a track on an online map, and other features. If they were the first to put all those features together, the sad reality is that they may deserve the patent. I hope not.

Showing that their invention was obvious to someone skilled in the art is extremely difficult after the fact, and again will probably require a court to settle.

The problem with that, Rob, is that the big companies with the resources, money, and lawyers, are using their muscle to bully the little guys who don't have these resources, to either pay up or go out of business. They're not interested in their day in court to prove their case. They're using the THREAT of court (the high expense of participating in our legal system) to get their competitors to pony up and pay. At least one has already caved and done so. Indeed, the first thing they asked for was their non-disclosure agreement, i.e., "let us screw you privately, out of view of the public eye... don't you tell anyone!" Oh, how they whined when this came out for all to see, and they objected to it "being tried in the court of public opinion". Well, public opinion DOES matter. We're the ones who buy (or choose not to buy) from people like this.

I look forward to the day they close their doors because their business dried up from lack of sales.

eric_marsh

12-27-2010, 06:35 AM

Or even worse, there are companies that simply force their competition out of business so that they can own the market.

I have a side business doing polyurea spray coatings. To have an idea of what polyurea is just think truck bed liners. Because this material is very thick and very strong it takes special masking techniques.

There is a special kind of masking tape used in the industry to get a clean edge. It has a piece of piano wire or tough cord running down one edge. After the coating has been applied the wire is pulled, cleanly cutting the coating. Then the masking is pulled for an attractive job.

An outfit in Canada was granted a patent for this technology, even though there was prior art. Evidently it originated with 3M. One company fought the patent but at some point their pockets weren't deep enough and they had to drop the fight.

Immediately the patent owner sued everyone who was making this product and put them all out of business. The owners of one such small business are friends of mine. As part of the settlement they had to send a letter to all their customers saying that the patent owner was the originator of the concept and that everyone should purchase their product from that company. Of course they were coerced to send that letter.

Consequently the price of trimtape went up seven fold and the quality of the product deteriorated. Instead of being able to select the tape that best fits the job they provide one size and expect it to fit all.

Fortunately I've still got a small cache of the old tape left that I'm hoarding. I'm thinking of building my own machine to make tape for my own use. Regardless, I do not do business with companies who's business practices I find abhorrent.

nedrose

12-27-2010, 07:54 AM

I don't know if they will have a booth at Sun&Fun, but if they do, the aviation community can surely boycott them.

Ned
42TD
200 hrs.

RV7AV8R

12-27-2010, 10:06 AM

Fortunately I've still got a small cache of the old tape left that I'm hoarding. I'm thinking of building my own machine to make tape for my own use. Regardless, I do not do business with companies who's business practices I find abhorrent.

Technically the patent owner has the right to enforce his exclusive right to make, use or sell the product, so you can not even make it for your own use... but he would have to some how know this and then go thought the expense to enforce his right. Not likely unless you are a really big user.

Chris Hill

12-27-2010, 03:03 PM

FlightPlanner is wasting their time....read here

http://www.aopa.org/flightplanning/articles/2010/101224voyager_flight_planner_counters_pilot_patent _concerns.html

There is always a work around...

MartySantic

12-27-2010, 04:25 PM

A very good story on AvWeb by Russ Niels. Well said!

"What Now, FlightPrep?"

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/WhatNowFlightPrep_203858-1.html

Peterk

12-27-2010, 05:50 PM

The last two posts say it all. AOPA (our paid-for lobbyist) is reporting the news (only) and our free aviation journalist (AVWeb) is pleading with FlightPrep to drop this foolish lawsuit against a man's family. And yes, EAA has reported the "event" as well. If an aviation news source can editorialize why can't our paid lobbyist's speak for us as well? Or maybe they are on the other side? That's my take until I hear otherwise.

sjarrell

12-27-2010, 06:02 PM

then upgraded it for $49 to with the SmartPlan Premier Flight Planning Module. It's FAR superior to the FlightPrep product which I'll be removing from my computer as soon as I've manually converted my existing flight plans.

Not another cent from me to FlightPrep.

AMURRAY

12-27-2010, 06:36 PM

It looks like Flightprep tried to bully Flightaware with no avial. I guess Flightaware has bigger lawyers.
http://flightaware.com/news/article/FlightAware-Statement-on-FlightPrep-Patent/147

N546RV

12-27-2010, 09:22 PM

You're still mixing up two separate issues here... One, whether FP's patent is valid or not (I think we all agree it isn't, but that still needs to be proven in court), and two, whether inventing something is enough to get a patent for it.

Remember, their patent isn't just for online flight planning. It also incorporates drawing a track on an online map, and other features. If they were the first to put all those features together, the sad reality is that they may deserve the patent. I hope not.

Showing that their invention was obvious to someone skilled in the art is extremely difficult after the fact, and again will probably require a court to settle.

Quite frankly, to me it doesn't matter if they were the first people to put a track on an online map. Drawing that magenta line is not an invention; the apparatus that draws that line is the invention. In this particular case, that apparatus is a mass of code that was developed by FlightPrep. Now if someone else starts with a clean slate and builds a similar product, I don't consider that to be an identical or derivative invention. It particularly irks me to read FlightPrep referring to RunwayFinder using "their technology." That is utter bullcrap. The only way someone could be using their technology is if they got a hold of FP's source code, copied and/or massaged it, and then passed it off as their own creation.

Now, I am nowhere near being a lawyer, nor am I versed on patent law, so don't think that I'm trying to pass this off as anything but my opinion. But this is the reason why, regardless of the legal status, I have a problem with this whole patent infringement issue.

Flying Scotsman

12-27-2010, 10:23 PM

Quite frankly, to me it doesn't matter if they were the first people to put a track on an online map. Drawing that magenta line is not an invention; the apparatus that draws that line is the invention. In this particular case, that apparatus is a mass of code that was developed by FlightPrep. Now if someone else starts with a clean slate and builds a similar product, I don't consider that to be an identical or derivative invention. It particularly irks me to read FlightPrep referring to RunwayFinder using "their technology." That is utter bullcrap. The only way someone could be using their technology is if they got a hold of FP's source code, copied and/or massaged it, and then passed it off as their own creation.

Now, I am nowhere near being a lawyer, nor am I versed on patent law, so don't think that I'm trying to pass this off as anything but my opinion. But this is the reason why, regardless of the legal status, I have a problem with this whole patent infringement issue.

I saw a very similar series of events many years ago (and I'm sure it's happening all over all the time) when I did GPS work. Some jerk decided he would "patent" the "method" for putting a point on a map (in fancy terms, georeferencing). Might as well "patent" the equation for computing distance...****, why not? He then proceeded to try to extort money from anyone and everyone who ever made a box that, oh, you know, actually *did the work* of computing fixes, loading and displaying maps, and showing a position on said map. After quite a while, he did, eventually, lose the case.

People who do this kind of **** should be hauled into court for fraud and sued to the ends of their means. I read the "patent" in the current case, and from where I sit (and no, I'm not a lawyer), it's just one big bucket of bushwa.

I swear, I'm going to patent the quadratic equation or something equally incredible and start going after everyone who solves an equation. Patent and copyright law has *not* kept up with the times. Moreover, individuals and companies who act like this will get NONE of my money, now or in the future. And I don't give a rip about the niceties of "they are two indiependent companies"...you own 'em, it's all the same to me...

I'll be sure to pass this info on to the flight club I belong to, as well...I'm sure the several hundred members, mostly comprised of people who earn a living in endeavors where ethical behavior and intellectual openness are considered key, will similarly take a dim view of this kind of extortion.

Will_S

12-27-2010, 11:53 PM

Its a poor business model that rather than being better, relies on destroying others work using 'The System' to establish its own superiority.

... but that is the system we have. We all use it to our own advantage if we can, mainly in small ways. But it can be used in larger ways if you have the gonads. FP are trying to show us the size of theirs....

... but to my mind its only those who are 'challenged' in that area who feel the need to go about bullying (legal or not). And, as such I would not purchase any product from someone who behaves as if their competitors are so much better that they couldn't be beaten in a fair fight (product-to-product in this case).

The world has several examples where these system-(mis)using tatics were successful. As a result of this, have we ended up with better products? Or just what was left?

So, I too will not support or recommend anything from FP, not only because I disagree with their use of the system, but primarily because their behaviour implys to me that even they appear to not believe their product is better!

GLPalinkas

12-28-2010, 06:40 AM

A very good story on AvWeb by Russ Niels. Well said!

"What Now, FlightPrep?"

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/WhatNowFlightPrep_203858-1.html

This article, in a community respected aviation news source, says it all. Time is running out for Flight Prep to DO THE RIGHT THING. Cancel all pending legal action and start figuring out what is best for aviation and it's pilots. That may end up earning FP the trust (and business) of the aviation community back. But, as I said "Time is running out" Flight Prep.

BrentHumphreys

12-28-2010, 06:59 AM

The avweb blog article is very good, and I commend Russ Niles for putting it out there.

This morning, AeroNews also has a great article about the situation. They also mention that FlightPrep has possibly threatened legal action to them for their coverage of the issue.

Last night, I got on and put my money where my mouth was and donated to the RunwayFinder legal defense fund. I was an occasional user of RunwayFinder, but I felt it was necessary for those of us that care about aviation and the aviation community to vote with our dollars. Since I wasn't a FlightPrep subscriber either, the only way I could "vote" was to contribute to the RunwayFinder fund.

I intend to continue contributing to the cause. I encourage all of you that are concerned, to contribute.

I would suggest that since a year subscription to FlightPrep is around $150, that might be a good starting point for a contribution, as a symbolic gesture.

MartySantic

12-28-2010, 09:23 AM

Here is the link.....

FlightPrep threatens Aero News Network (ANN) for their coverage of the RunwayFinder issue. Just amazing!

http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=a4b3b4e4-7a9a-4326-b147-b22adf722391&Dynamic=1

BrentHumphreys

12-28-2010, 09:26 AM

That link was broken I will try Here it is (http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=a4b3b4e4-7a9a-4326-b147-b22adf722391&Dynamic=1)

Sig600

12-28-2010, 10:38 AM

I'm waiting for Flightprep to go after Falconview and PFPS (military mission planning software) since it all works the same.

Lets see them sue those outfits.

BrentHumphreys

12-30-2010, 05:55 AM

If anyone still harbored a thought that FlightPrep was acting reaonably. Read this.
http://bit.ly/gTNpbX

eric_marsh

12-30-2010, 05:56 AM

Here is an interesting article I just came across about software patents in general: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374861,00.asp?kc=PCRSS03079TX1K0000585

MacNab

12-30-2010, 08:42 AM

FYI, for you folks who are on Facebook. Dave Parsons created a Facebook page for RunwayFinder. It would be nice if more people would click 'like' to show your support for his great website and post a note of encouragement.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/RunwayFinder/138364916218984

N42AH

12-30-2010, 08:49 AM

AVwWebs interview

FlightPrep's patent on online flight planning isn't perfect, but it doesn't have to be to fend off challenges. IFR editor and Aviation Consumer contributor Jeff Van West spoke with patent attorney and pilot Lionel Lavenue about how patents are generally a good thing and how difficult it might be for those fighting this one to win.

http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/AudioPodcast_LionelLavenue_FlightPrepFlightPlannin g_PatentLaw_203826-1.html?kw=RelatedBlog

Walt

12-30-2010, 08:54 AM

They may win the battle, but I think they are losing the war :D
Check out the latest on Aero-News:
http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=9895d80b-2471-4710-bac5-a87c37210ce7&Dynamic=1

eric_marsh

12-30-2010, 09:52 AM

I just reviewed both of the links in the prior two posts and found them interesting. What I still wonder is why these services are not being offered from European companies, as Europe does not recognize software patents.

Snowflake

12-30-2010, 10:12 AM

eric_marsh

12-30-2010, 10:21 AM

Or why the original site owners didn't just get them hosted on a European site. I guess if the site is still ultimately run by someone in the US, that person is still someone you can attack. They'd have to sell the entire package to someone in Europe, and give up any control to make that work.

Even then, maybe they could be sued for "aiding and abetting" or something like that. :P

If I were in that boat and did not expect my software to make me any money I'd just open source it. Give it to the world and let the world decide what to do with it.

Flight prep's lawyers would stay fat chasing each and every node that would pop up. :)

nauga

12-30-2010, 10:30 AM

Mods: Sorry for the brief diversion.

If anyone still harbored a thought that FlightPrep was acting reaonably. Read this. I'm on Runway Finder's side in all this but before this part of it goes too far you owe it to yourself to independently verify Jim Campbell's (ANN's 'editor') claims of persecution. This isn't the first song at that concert.

Cards on the table: Campbell unsuccessfully sued me and 14 others several years ago. Details are out there for your reading pleasure. Suffice it to say that if Campbell came in soaking wet and told me it was raining I'd still check the weather before grabbing an umbrella. He's not helping RF's case.

John Clark

12-30-2010, 03:34 PM

I'm on Runway Finder's side in all this but before this part of it goes too far you owe it to yourself to independently verify Jim Campbell's (ANN's 'editor') claims of persecution. This isn't the first song at that concert.

Google "James "Captain Zoom" Campbell" and read some history.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

kevinh

12-30-2010, 10:04 PM

Apropos of our discussion, I just saw this post on reddit by industry leader John Dvorak: why software patents have got to go (http://www.reddit.com/tb/etpt2). (Btw: there is a small aviation subreddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/))

jjconstant

01-03-2011, 09:16 AM

There was an interview in AvWeb. Basically FlightPerp (oops) Prep is trying to publicly justify its actions against Runway Finder by saying that not dropping the lawsuit was the only way to get Runway Finder to the table. He is admitting to using the legal system as an extortion tool. Very common but in my book very immoral. Strong-arming someone into negotiations they don't want to engage in is one more example of "might is right". Just because it works doesn't mean people will see it as O.K.

Jeremy

extortion: The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

MartySantic

01-07-2011, 08:50 AM

BrentHumphreys

01-07-2011, 09:29 AM

Just posted my response to a Letter to the Editor (which supports FlightPrep) on General Aviation News. Looking at the dozen comments, some positive some negative. My response, made it clear I support RunwayFinder. Add your thoughts....

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/?p=34120&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I did... 36 hours ago. It still doesn't show up on the site. They claim they have approved all comments... but it was over 12 hours after the article was posted before any comments showed up.

My comments were reasonable, and should not have been moderated. I think that web site comes down on the side of FlightPrep so I am a little suspicious.

MacNab

01-07-2011, 09:32 AM

Wow! Over 42,000 thread views in one month.

MartySantic

01-07-2011, 09:32 AM

I did... 36 hours ago. It still doesn't show up on the site. They claim they have approved all comments... but it was over 12 hours after the article was posted before any comments showed up.

My comments were reasonable, and should not have been moderated. I think that web site comes down on the side of FlightPrep so I am a little suspicious.

Please try again!! I had no trouble whatsoever.

MacNab

01-07-2011, 09:42 AM

I wonder when Flightprep is going to sue Google since Dave Parson's is primarily guilty of cleverly using Google's free mapping apps and API's to tile U.S. government provided sectional charts on his excellent website.

I'm also wondering why Google hasn't stepped into the fray in support of Dave since he was using their free products to produce his site.

fehdxl

01-07-2011, 12:19 PM

I wonder when Flightprep is going to sue Google ...

I'll speculate that's FP's tactic...to go after the little guys first, establish precedence (in the courts or not), then go after the larger guys with extra additional support. Not sure if it works that way, but that's one thought I've had...FWIW.

plehrke

01-07-2011, 12:38 PM

MartySantic

01-07-2011, 12:54 PM

Dave Parson's just posted an update on his blog. He sounds upbeat and is very appreciative for all the support and help!!

http://blog.runwayfinder.com/2011/01/07/the-lawyers-are-talking/

Bevan

01-07-2011, 01:19 PM

If FP is in fact going after the little guy first (for whatever reason), it makes me think of how WW2 started and got so big because too many for too long failed to see what was really happening. This bullying behaviour has to be stopped before there are more innocent casualties. This battle must be won, and soon. Let Dave know you are with him if you haven't already. Consider supporting him by making a donation at http://boycottflightprep.com/

Bevan :cool:

jjmore

01-08-2011, 08:39 AM

It is great to see the Electronic Frontier Foundation getting involved.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/when-bad-patents-hurt-good-people-patent-threat

AltonD

01-08-2011, 11:48 AM

Dave Parson's just posted an update on his blog. He sounds upbeat and is very appreciative for all the support and help!!

http://blog.runwayfinder.com/2011/01/07/the-lawyers-are-talking/

Me thinks FP considered itself the bigdog. If their patent is invalidated, they will have to stay under the porch, not to mention the business they have lost.

kevinh

01-08-2011, 03:34 PM

It is great to see the Electronic Frontier Foundation getting involved.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/when-bad-patents-hurt-good-people-patent-threat

Yep - I've been donating to these awesome folks for years. My college coop housemate was their first lawyer and he won their first victory, the Steve Jackson Games lawsuit (https://www.eff.org/about/history).

MartySantic

01-11-2011, 01:08 PM

The following [link includes] response[s] to the Letter to the Editor on the General Aviation News website which supported FlightPrep. If true, it gives one a little insight to the business practices of Mr. Stenbock. See,

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/?p=34120#more-34120

[...removed the text I'm sure my lawyer would want me to, and adjusted URL to point to entire story. No need to duplicate the vitrol here. dr]

krwalsh

01-12-2011, 12:28 PM

the quote at the end of the AOPA Aviation eBrief today was particularly appropriate, given the situation:

"If there's anything I've learned from my years in the tech world, it's that companies don't get killed by competition. They usually find creative ways to commit suicide."

--Sridhar Vembu,
CEO of Zoho

Danny7

02-13-2011, 01:44 PM

some news/ update:

http://blog.runwayfinder.com/2011/02/13/motion-to-dismiss/

The RunwayFinder attorneys filed a motion two weeks ago in the Oregon district court to dismiss FlightPrep’s lawsuit based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. My understanding of the motion is that FlightPrep filed their lawsuit with the wrong court. They could of course file again with the correct court. I hope instead they start taking a different approach rather than continue the full-court press against pilots that run websites as a hobby.

I would like to be able to report some good news, but there isn’t much of it. Although things have quieted down, they are certainly not going any better. RunwayFinder is still offline. We are preparing the reexamination request, and I’m confident their patent will be drastically reduced in scope if not completely nullified. As I mentioned before, reexamination is a long process. Although it may not help the immediate situation, it will improve the outlook for online flight planning in the future.

I appreciate all of the support. Hopefully this some day comes to a resolution.

On a side note, another person has independently made a website that displays aviation charts in a Google Maps-style interface. It doesn’t have all of the features that RunwayFinder had, but does include more chart types: vfrmap.com.

kevinh

02-13-2011, 01:46 PM

If the following comes to fruition Pete is officially my new hero.

I would like to be able to report some good news, but there isn?t much of it. Although things have quieted down, they are certainly not going any better. RunwayFinder is still offline. We are preparing the reexamination request, and I?m confident their patent will be drastically reduced in scope if not completely nullified. As I mentioned before, reexamination is a long process. Although it may not help the immediate situation, it will improve the outlook for online flight planning in the future.

ScottSchmidt

02-14-2011, 09:03 PM

Just wanting to post this site that was mentioned on Runwayfinders blog.
It works pretty good but is a little slow loading.

http://vfrmap.com/

kentb

02-15-2011, 10:02 AM

Just wanting to post this site that was mentioned on Runwayfinders blog.
It works pretty good but is a little slow loading.

http://vfrmap.com/

I sure do miss RunWayFinder.:mad:

Last year about this time I was using it to make rough plans of the 48 state trip. It was the easiest site for simple flight planning.

Kent

Vlad

02-15-2011, 11:48 AM

Just wanting to post this site that was mentioned on Runwayfinders blog.
It works pretty good but is a little slow loading.

http://vfrmap.com/

These maps are great! Thanks Scott. It looks fabulous on my BigMac :D and loads like a snap. Nice very nice!

WhiskeyMike

02-15-2011, 02:37 PM

It could well be due to substandard computer skills (my deficiencies are considerable in many areas!) but it does not appear that the vfrmap.com site permits routes to be selected, or flight planning of any kind. Given the current litigious environment (thanks to FlightPrep) that would not be surprising if true, but I wanted to verify with others if that is in fact the case or whether I?m just being particularly daft today ?.thanks!

pazmanyflyer

02-15-2011, 02:50 PM

Snowflake

02-15-2011, 05:38 PM

You're not alone Bill. I noticed the same thing. It seems to be an electronic chart and that's it. No options for flight planning.
YET.

Apparently.

Vlad

02-20-2011, 09:55 PM

Fresh article in New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/business/21patent.html?hp). Interesting.

MartySantic

03-03-2011, 08:25 PM

scard

03-03-2011, 08:31 PM

FlightPrep will be at SunNFun per the SNF website. Think all that attend should let them know the homebuilder/aviation community is not too terribly happy with the actions that they have taken recently. Hope to be there.

Seems like a good reason to return to SunNFun for the first time in many years. Oh, my first SunNFun was to talk to Eggenfellner / or is that Viking engines?... Maybe not! :).

RV6_flyer

03-04-2011, 05:54 AM

FlightPrep will be at SunNFun per the SNF website. Think all that attend should let them know the homebuilder/aviation community is not too terribly happy with the actions that they have taken recently. Hope to be there.

[ed. Can you post the URL to the 2011 exhibitor's list? I found one for 2010, but not 2011. I agree that if they show they are in for an earfull. dr]

Here is a list of Sun-N-Fun exhibitors for 2011.

http://www.sun-n-fun.org/FlyIn/Exhibitors/2011Exhibitors.aspx

Here is an insert from the list.

FlightPrep B-036, B-037

XOverZero

03-04-2011, 07:40 AM

I'll be there. If I had a Runway Finder T-shirt, I would make it a point to wear it...real bright color.:rolleyes:

Imagine a stream of 20-30-40 people all wearing the same shirt, all just strolling peacefully by their booth.

Any enterprising soul on board here who can make a T-shirt happen quickly? How about part of the proceeds going to the RF defense fund?

Just a random thought or two...

John
RV-9 Preview
Scheming and planning

XOverZero

03-04-2011, 09:43 AM

...with Dwight. Any sort of activity like that would necessitate touching home base first. All things considered I would not be surprised if Dave had to remain neutral - at best. He has more than enough to deal with. What is ultimately in the best interest of him and Runway Finder should rule.

eric_marsh

03-04-2011, 10:04 AM

Thoughts? Opinions?

I like it.

DwightFrye

03-04-2011, 11:28 AM

I heard from Dave and his comment was that ... he can't comment.

[Idea dropped, so the details don't need to be retained - dfrye]

[ed. I would respectfully ask you not promote doing this on my site. It puts ME and my family in the legal crosshairs, so to speak. Davey has another job to fall back on. I don't. ;^) dr]

XOverZero

03-04-2011, 12:51 PM

Sorry to waste space but I feel the need to clarify. Don't know why, but when I read the previous post with the shirt photos, those pics did not appear. I was not aware of what I was "agreeing" to. I do not agree with that direction. I never considered anything other than the RunwayFinder name, and that alone. I could not support an idea to direct negative comment toward any third party.

DR has made his wishes known and that's that. I would not want to do or say anything that could backlash on either VAF or RF. I apologize most deeply for the misunderstanding.

DwightFrye

03-04-2011, 12:58 PM

I have been (very respectfully) asked to drop this effort, and I am happy to do so. That is why I asked opinions before actually just putting up a site making the shirts available.

Thanks for the quick answers on whether this was worth doing or not!

pzaremba

03-04-2011, 06:48 PM

This is what I sent earlier tonight:

Greetings,

I just ran across the story of the threats of patent lawsuit your company has apparently used against the guys at Runway Finder and Sky Vector.

I will never, ever buy something from a patent troll, and will enthusiastically share the story with all of my friends. The fact that the USPTO allowed a patent on this obvious technology is laughable, absurd, and shameful.

This story seems to be yet another data point in the case for extreme software patent reform.

Another software guy fed up with this nonsense,
Paul Zaremba

pzaremba

03-04-2011, 07:11 PM