What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Runway Finder Shutting Down

Why not open source the code

then we can all have our version of the software running.. what will they do then, come after everyone who has the source code?
 
The arrogance in Flight prep's release, offering them a temporary free-pass at our technology, geez. Our technology, what part? It's pretty clear why no one would accept that offer.

I would gladly buy a shirt for the Boycott T-shirt campaign.
 
That free license is a trojan horse if ever I saw one. If FlightPrep wants to play fair then please explain how RunwayFinder infringes on your patents.... assuming they are valid.
 
I've seen this before.

It's sad, but it's starting to look like FP is trying to get their
hands on the RF software. This happened with the
Luscombe Type Certificate a few years ago.
The threats were identical.
The New Jersey lawyers won because the TC owners
didn't have deep enough pockets to fight them.

I hope I'm wrong,
Tom
 
petehowell said:
Just saw this note on one of my favorite and most useful websites.

Dave Parsons is an RV builder/owner and based on my experience with him, a great guy. I will really miss the site.
Click to expand...

Pete, I don't know Dave Parsons. I would really like to hear his side of things, given the new information that has been released. He says that he's tried to contact the plaintiffs and has been ignored. They make the same claim in reverse.

It sounds to me like these parties need to sit down with someone at the White House for beers ...
 
Last edited:
AOPA web site down...or...???

I've been trying to log on to the AOPA web site on several different occasions this afternoon, and I can't get it to come up on my browser. Since RunwayFinder has been shut down (or is that "shot" down?) I thought I'd use the AOPA Flight planner instead.

I can't get it to load...do you suppose...oh, I don't think so...no, no...but do you think the guy has taken on AOPA??? Surely not, although based on what I've read, S&E (FP) has just as much legal authority to say AOPA's Flight Planner infringes on their patent. Just seems strange, though. Hmmm.:rolleyes:

Can anyone else get a hit from www.aopa.org?
 
If you are a member of the EAA, you can
log into Aeroplanner.com with your EAA-365
userid and password.

I used it about an hour ago when I couldn't
get in to the AOPA.

Tom
 
rv7boy said:
I've been trying to log on to the AOPA web site on several different occasions this afternoon, and I can't get it to come up on my browser. Since RunwayFinder has been shut down (or is that "shot" down?) I thought I'd use the AOPA Flight planner instead.

I can't get it to load...do you suppose...oh, I don't think so...no, no...but do you think the guy has taken on AOPA??? Surely not, although based on what I've read, S&E (FP) has just as much legal authority to say AOPA's Flight Planner infringes on their patent. Just seems strange, though. Hmmm.:rolleyes:

Can anyone else get a hit from www.aopa.org?
Click to expand...

I just tried and couldn't get to the web site either...:confused:
 
N8RV said:
Some in the pilot community are of the opinion that patents are unfair and should not be granted for software. We doubt we can change their minds with this news release. However, the fact is many patents are issued for software inventions every year. Without them inventors would have little incentive to advance state of the art technologies. Applying for patents and seeking royalties are normal and sound business practices and are done by virtually all successful technology businesses, large or small.
Click to expand...

"Software Inventions". Lawyer speak for "programming." Geez.

So since Flight Prep seems to be reading this forum, I would love for them to explain to me how their patent is "state of the art", much less how it "advances" anything.

Yeah, I know that companies of all size do it. You see, that's the problem. I can't sit down and write some code without infringing on someone's patent. IBM owns over 1,000,000 software patents - and that's just one company.
 
Gotta love it...

Carl J. Niedermeyer said:
AOPA has been advised by its flight planning partner, Jeppesen, that the online flight planning methods employed by the AOPA Internet Flight Planner, which is powered by Jeppesen, do not infringe on the patent recently awarded to FlightPrep.
Click to expand...

Translation: We (Jeppesen, owned by Boeing) have a lot more and better lawyers than you have at FlightPrep. So p*** off!

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
N8RV said:
I hate it when grownups can't resolve a problem honestly. From the above link, this:

We are writing this release to dispel some significant misconceptions regarding our dealings with Mr. David Parsons of RunwayFinder, LLC.

Mr. Parsons, on his own accord and in an apparent ploy to gain sympathy from the pilot community, shut down the RunwayFinder website on December 13, 2010 at 11:25pm PST, in the face of our good faith offer to provide RunwayFinder a free license during negotiation for a constructive resolution to our dispute and absent any demands by FlightPrep. FlightPrep attempted to contact Mr. Parsons numerous times prior to his decision to shut down RunwayFinder, including a call on December 13, 2010 at 1:00pm. However, Mr. Parsons did not return any of our calls.

Some in the pilot community are of the opinion that patents are unfair and should not be granted for software. We doubt we can change their minds with this news release. However, the fact is many patents are issued for software inventions every year. Without them inventors would have little incentive to advance state of the art technologies. Applying for patents and seeking royalties are normal and sound business practices and are done by virtually all successful technology businesses, large or small.

As part of this process, FlightPrep attempted to contact Mr. Parsons of RunwayFinder, LLC by phone and registered letters on numerous occasions over a protracted period of time. All of these attempts were ignored and rejected. Absent allowing RunwayFinder unfettered and uncompensated use of our intellectual property, a lawsuit was our only remaining next step.

Mr. Parsons response was to elect to try this case in the court of public opinion instead of employing professional and good faith business practices. Since this technique is counterproductive, we did not care to participate. Yet, we find we must respond to news reports and RunwayFinder?s blog posts containing several distortions and outright false statements about FlightPrep, its employees, representatives, technology, and motives. This latest move of RunwayFinder, electing to shut down its website, is another example of an attempt to inflame the pilot community.

In spite of the foregoing, FlightPrep stands by its offer to grant a free-license to RunwayFinder to operate its website during this negotiation phase of our legal dispute. We are not asking RunwayFinder to shut down and in-fact are offering them a temporary free-pass at our technology in hopes that this gesture of goodwill will better enable both RunwayFinder and FlightPrep to constructively work toward a mutually beneficial long-term solution.

If you would like to learn more about our online flight planning patent, please visit http://www.flightprep.com/license or email [email protected].

So, who is telling the truth? One side or the other is not being honest.
Click to expand...

Wow, FlightPrep's statement is loaded. Impressively condescending.
 
"In spite of the foregoing, FlightPrep stands by its offer to grant a free-license to RunwayFinder to operate its website during this negotiation phase of our legal dispute. We are not asking RunwayFinder to shut down and in-fact are offering them a temporary free-pass at our technology in hopes that this gesture of goodwill will better enable both RunwayFinder and FlightPrep to constructively work toward a mutually beneficial long-term solution."

This sounds cooperative. Am I missing something?
 
Ron Lee said:
"In spite of the foregoing, FlightPrep stands by its offer to grant a free-license to RunwayFinder to operate its website during this negotiation phase of our legal dispute. We are not asking RunwayFinder to shut down and in-fact are offering them a temporary free-pass at our technology in hopes that this gesture of goodwill will better enable both RunwayFinder and FlightPrep to constructively work toward a mutually beneficial long-term solution."

This sounds cooperative. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Yes. They offered a temporary free license while their lawsuit is still pending. How impressive of them.
 
John Clark said:
Translation: We (Jeppesen, owned by Boeing) have a lot more and better lawyers than you have at FlightPrep. So p*** off!
Click to expand...

Although as a software engineer I agree wholeheartedly about the basic notion of software patents (it's bad), part of me would like to see Jeppesen go after FlightPrep.

I also wonder how much effect this action will have on them. Will they even notice?
 
Now that the AOPA is involved, hoping the AOPA will share their research with Dave at RunwayFinder and get Dave's site up and running again. Hoping Dave will make the call and discuss the same with the AOPA legal staff.
 
I've read all the posts, they have grown from 7 pages this morning to over 13 tonight,, WE ROCK AS A GROUP!!

How about having AOPA, Jepp and EAA ALL 3 get on the same page, get Dave's "Stuff" and make Runway Finder a part of all three,, sharing for flight planning,,, All 3 groups have huge numbers, both in members, organizations and supporters with very deep pockets,,

Just a thought.

Kenny Gene
 
I fired off a letter today to all the addresses that Doug had listed. I did get a reply basically paraphrasing everything they have said in their blog. I also told them that nobody in our aviation unit would be buying their products anymore. So, I encourage everybody else to do the same. I believe they have placed their bets and might be questioning whether or not it was wise to have done it.
 
sprucemoose said:
Wow. This reminds me of the JPI vs. Matronics deal from the late 90s. JPI may have won the battle, but to this day you don't see many RVs with their products in the panel (nor should you ever.) They've just alienated a large chunk of their potential customer base.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I thought as well. JPI and FlightPrep are now evil in my book. We'll be making sure that everyone at every local EAA gathering knows about this.

I'm a software engineer who has both filed and defended software patents and I know how bogus most software patents are.
 
Also if Doug Parsons needs help finding prior art to invalidate this bogus patent, I'm happy to help. In fact, his site was up before the patent was filed.

http://images.flightprep.com/License/USPatent-7640098.pdf

In fact - a very public, crowdsourced effort to find and document prior art might be enough of a stick that this evil company will lay-off. They presumably want to go after bigger fish than runwayfinder, and if fighting runwayfinder decreases their chances against Jeppesen they might go elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Ron Lee said:
"In spite of the foregoing, FlightPrep stands by its offer to grant a free-license to RunwayFinder to operate its website during this negotiation phase of our legal dispute. We are not asking RunwayFinder to shut down and in-fact are offering them a temporary free-pass at our technology in hopes that this gesture of goodwill will better enable both RunwayFinder and FlightPrep to constructively work toward a mutually beneficial long-term solution."

This sounds cooperative. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Yep.

If RunwayFinder would accept a temporary license, it would strengthen FlightPrep's case.

You see, FlightPrep's lawyers just put a line out on the internet that says use our license and keep your site up. If he kept his site up, would he be keeping it up because he doesn't feel like he needs a license or would he be keeping it up by the temporary license that was issued via a website?

So if he's up and running, which platform is he running on; the original or the licensed version? The lawyers will say it was the licensed version.

What the lawyers missed is that you can't offer a temporary license on the internet and think that's a good offer. If you're going to offer a temporary license, put it in a contract for acceptance by signature. I have a feeling that's something they don't want to do and they're hoping RF comes back online and then they can claim the temp license was accepted. (Or was it?) So they're leaving them with no choice but to keep the site shut down.

I think the RunwayFinder guys are handling this quite well and I think they're doing a great job of staying one step ahead of the lawyers. They seem to be pretty well informed or at least well educated in playing the game the lawyers want to play.
 
Last edited:
What about a good old fashion boycott campaign of FlightPrep?
  • Build a page listing the reason for the boycott.
  • Make a banner which web site owners could post on their home page with a link to the page above.
When Boycott FlightPrep banners start popping up all over the web I'd think FlightPrep may just go away for good.

Frank Holbert
http://160knots.com
 
Last edited:
fholbert said:
What about a good old fashion boycott campaign of FlightPrep?
  • Build a page listing the reason for the boycott.
  • Make a banner which web site owners could post on their home page with a link to the page above.
When Boycott FlightPrep banners start popping up all over the web I'd think FlightPrep may just go away for good.

Frank Holbert
http://160knots.com
Click to expand...

Frank,

How are you doing?

Jerry
 
Last edited:
Phil said:
If RunwayFinder would accept a temporary license, it would strengthen FlightPrep's case.
Click to expand...
Bingo.

I've been reading this for three days now and had to add my name to the pile. I downloaded Flightprep's trial version of their iPad software, but it didn't give me anything I didn't already have with other free programs available from the App store. I won't name them, lest FP decides they need to go after them too.

I'm not impressed. I'll add my review to their app page tomorrow AM when I get to work... Can't do it from home as my iTunes install is at work. And i'll delete the trial version too, which will expire in 20 days anyway.
 
FlightPrep is actively de-liking Facebook accounts to remove negative comments from their Facebook page. They can run like a chicken from the public opinion...... but they will find no place to hide. Two things I have learned about aviation over the last 35 years: (1) It is a small community. & (2) It has a VERY long memory.

FlightPrep has screwed themselves. As they look for blame they can simply look in the mirror. Perhaps they can sue themselves and prevail!
 
Last edited:
PINK Anti-bully T-shirt

I agree with what others have said here and I can't believe this company is proceeding in this era of fast growing public awareness about bullying. Anti-bullying day here is Feb 23, 2011. I cast my vote for the T-shirt campaign and a offering a donation to a war chest to fight this. Although isn't this what AOPA/COPA etc are to be doing? Not to a mention a personal boycott of the offending products/services.

In my opinion, the T-shirt should be pink to mutually support the growing Anti-bullying campaign already in place, and worn en-masse at all major aviation events in 2011.

see http://www.pinkshirtday.ca/

These guys appear to be nothing more than old school yard bullies who were never fortunate enough to be corrected at an early age. So, I guess they need to be corrected at an old age, which will be more painfull.

Just as they say..."There's no difference between men and boys other than the size and price of their toys." Bullying is not socially acceptable, on the school yard, nor the business world. Hopefully these guys will learn to play nicely in the sandbox. :rolleyes:

Bevan
RV7A wiring
VAF donation Dec 2010

PS I doubt the loser who bullied me in grade 7 does cool things like... build and fly airplanes!!! :eek:
 
> Now that the AOPA is involved

I really doubt that AOPA will take any sides re: this issue.

I was unsuccessful in giving AOPA an eBook version of their
airport directory. In the course of the discussions; I got to
view AOPA's own "std" NDAs and contracts. I declined to
sign them because they are loaded with indemnification clauses
that shift the burden to whoever signs them.

I do NOT KNOW if the contract between AOPA & Jepp/Boeing
includes the indemnification clauses ... but I'm GUESSING that
it does. If so; AOPA's own exposure would be quite limited.

WRT to Jepp/Boeing. I doubt they want to nullify the patent.
More likely that they'll use their own patent portfolio and
much deeper pockets to bludgeon FlightPrep into a $0
cross-license arrangment ... this is in Boeing's interest
because FlightPrep will be able to continue litigating others
(Jepp/Boeing alternatives) without Jepp/Boeing being the
bad-guy.
 
Last edited:
FlightPrep responds

Just wanted to let VAF'ers know that I received a response to an email I sent yesterday to FlightPrep (text in a previous post). Let me clarify that. I received a response from the Support staff and self described "humble technicians in tech support". I have not received a response from Sales or Management.

Basically, the staff sent an individually written email response, not a cut and paste company line response, that outlined what they felt was an attempt to negotiate a settlement. I replied with my thoughts and thanked them for being genuine. I hope the support staff reviews the tact taken by the company and has some weight in their ability to convince management otherwise.
 
Legal positions

Since moderators are not lawyers, but we apparently often act like them, and I'm one of them (moderator, not a lawyer) AND since one of my fellow moderators is trying to keep me (and Doug) out of trouble, I have decided to completely rewrite this post.

Simply said, it's really easy to form some opinions about the folks involved in this dispute. Besides their actions, there's also a lot of information readily available by which opinions can be formed. In the end, they are only opinions.

I only hope we will someday have access to an aviation planning product that was as easy to use as what we used to have.
 
Last edited:
Careful!

Listers,

This thread is rapidly turning toward an ugly personal nature instead of discussing the points of difference between the two parties involved.

I fear these personal references are going to put Doug in a very awkward and potentially vulnerable position. This moderator will henceforth delete any additional posts of this nature. Discuss the marketing aspect of this matter if you wish, but messages that could be considered as libelous will not be allowed.
 
Last edited:
Some general facts.

I don't have a dog in this fight since I don't use any of these products or know anyone involved. However, I am a patent lawyer, so I just thought I would add some general facts to the discussion. This is not legal advice, etc. etc.

The patent in question appears to be 7,640,098.This patent is based on a "divisional" application which means it shares the priority date of application 09/919,672, filed Jul. 31, 2001, and its life is also measured from the filing date of application 09/919,672. A "divisional" application is a common occurrence and is not some kind of "trick filing".

The effective priority date of the '098 Patent is therefore July 31, 2001. The USPTO is legally obligated to review whether or not the claimed invention is "new" and "non-obvious" compared to the state of the art as of that date. The USPTO receives about 400,000 patent applications per year and has a long backlog. It's not unusual for the USPTO to be reviewing a case long after its filed. In this case, the PTO didn't take up the original application for examination until about four years after it was filed.

A patent application has 2 parts: the "specification" which describes how to make and use the invention, and the "claims" which define the legal scope of the invention.

Typically, a patent application will be filed with claims ranging from very broad to very narrow. Frequently, the broadest claims will be rejected. The applicant will then respond by amending the claims to make them more specific. For example, if you think you can buy a car for $1000 under sticker, you might start your offer at $2000 under sticker.

Most of what the USPTO reviews consists of patents and published patent applications. Often, in emerging fields such as software, the state of the art is not well-documented in a way easily accessible to the USPTO.
 
Sam Buchanan said:
Listers,

This thread is rapidly turning toward an ugly personal nature instead of discussing the points of difference between the two parties involved.

I fear these personal references are going to put Doug in a very awkward and potentially vulnerable position. This moderator will henceforth delete any additional posts of this nature. Discuss the marketing aspect of this matter if you wish, but messages that could be considered as libelous will not be allowed.
Click to expand...

With that said, I would also be very careful about discussing points of difference between FlightPrep and any other on-line service that you favor. You can be sure that FlightPrep reads this forum (Sam's point) and in addition to putting Doug at risk with invectives, you put your favorite on-line service at risk by announcing the superior services they provide as compared to FlightPrep.

It would be interesting however to know exactly what is in the patent and what is not. As an example; geo-referenced positions on electronic charts (who owns that one?). Is it all written out somewhere that a pilot without a law degree could understand?
 
TechDirt

Unfortunately, as another poster mentioned, this junk goes on all the time in the tech business. Companies patent "inventions" that have obvious historical prior art. Some claim that it is to protect themselves from just this kind of nonsense. It is reminiscent of cold war mutually assured destruction. Sue me for that and I'll sue you for this.

TechDirt just picked up on the plight of RunwayFinder and they have, as usual, a pretty darn good write up here. There is a link to the actual suit filed by FlightPrep on the page as well.
 
Sam Buchanan said:
I fear these personal references are going to put Doug in a very awkward and potentially vulnerable position. This moderator will henceforth delete any additional posts of this nature. Discuss the marketing aspect of this matter if you wish, but messages that could be considered as libelous will not be allowed.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised the thread wasn't closed 7 pages ago. I think we're preaching to the choir here, we all agree that FP is being a patent bully, nothing more.
 
Snowflake said:
I think we're preaching to the choir here, we all agree that FP is being a patent bully, nothing more.
Click to expand...

So are you suggesting the builder community should just plain give up on a small company that is providing a FREE service to all of us.

Did you notice the AOPA told FlightPrep publicly that they have no claim. I have to wonder if FlightPrep will file with the AOPA? I doubt they have the confidence in their patent. Instead, it appears FlightPrep will engage the small guy, hoping to bolster their case.

Did you notice FlightPrep requested a jury trial in the court documents, where the outcome sometimes is not based on fact? Wonder why?

Here is the link to their US Patent. A good read.
 
Last edited:
Lemmingman said:
TechDirt just picked up on the plight of RunwayFinder and they have, as usual, a pretty darn good write up here. There is a link to the actual suit filed by FlightPrep on the page as well.
Click to expand...

That was a very good write up! If that is representative of what the tech community feels about this case, then it sure matches what the pilot community appears to feel as well. Thanks for the link!

MartySantic said:
So are you suggesting the builder community should just plain give up on a small company that is providing a FREE service to all of us.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what anyone is suggesting...but rather a strong but measured and considered response. From the posts, it appears that most of us are angered, frustrated, saddened and shocked (well maybe not shocked) by this.

The types of posts Sam is talking about can certainly be damaging to the cause, so as a group, (IMHO) it's best to take the high road, no matter how viceral our reaction.

I received a reply to my e-mail to FlightPrep from one of the owners of the company. Others may have received the same response. To me, it rang hollow, as did their blog entries and any other statements I have seen from them on this. Therefore, my choice is to never do business with them, unless they make this right.

They appear to have made a decision, and now so have I...and they now know how I feel. No slander, no libel...and no $$. Knowing that they are driving potential customers away, and losing current customers may be the only language that resonates...we'll see.

Still pullin' for the little guy!

Best,
Bob
 
Maybe VAF could have a "Vendor Good Guy" forum where posters can make comments about vendor experiences. This way these types of things don't get forgotten 6 months or a year down the road. A seperate forum would make it easy to search for feedback about a vendor before making a purchase.
 
OK, I was just trying to be "politically correct", lets just make it "Don't do Business with these Guys" forum :D
 
MartySantic said:
So are you suggesting the builder community should just plain give up on a small company that is providing a FREE service to all of us.
Click to expand...
Not at all, don't be silly. But we've already put 15 pages of support out there. After a certain point, it starts to degenerate into a bad area that the mods have already needed to step in and control. Posting personal contact info for the principals at FP, for example. That invites contact that can border on assault and opens DR and VAF.net up to legal hassles that didn't exist when it was just FP attacking RF.

The sad reality is that the combination of the Patent system and Legal system allows for bullying like this to take place when it's a large company against a small one (or an individual). The depth of your pockets will dictate how well you can defend yourself, unless you can find a sugar daddy like AOPA to get your back. This system can't be fixed by discussing it on VAF.net, all we can do is mourn the loss of RF.
 
So what are you going to use in place of Runway Finder?

Except for possibly following KentB's impressive 48 state flight this summer, I don't recall using Runway Finder. No diss...just fact. Obviously it was well liked by many and I regret not checking it more completely prior to being shut down (temporary?).

I don't use AOPA, DUATS or similar services. I use my Air Chart Topo Atlas, Airnav, aviationweather.gov, and Flight Service for TFRs. One of the more useful data points is the weather map with LIFR, MVR, IFR and VFR icons on this site:

http://aviationweather.gov/adds/satellite/

I just checked the eastern USA and if I wanted to go to Michigan today from Colorado, I know right away that I would not be flying.

When I was flying more, I had weathermeister for a year and it was excellent. I think I had it set up to provide everything I now use from several sources so it was easy, concise and quick.
 
Last edited:
Ron Lee said:
Except for possibly following KentB's impressive 48 state flight this summer, I don't recall using Runway Finder.

I don't use AOPA, DUATS or similar services. I use my SkyChart, Airnav, aviationweather.gov, and Flight Service for TFRs.
Click to expand...

Right there is one of the issues. You so use RunwayFinder, and don't know it. If you use AirNav, and click on the sectional (well, not anymore, but previously) then the sectional was provided by RunwayFinder. If you have ForeFlight on an iPad, I have to assume that you are soon going to lose your sectionals as well, as those are provided by RunwayFinder as well. There are repercussions way beyond just trying to go to runwayfinder.com.

What strikes me as odd is that FlightPrep is not going after AOPA, Jeppesen, etc. If they really believe they have a valid patent, why are they going after the little guys, and not the deep pockets? Is it because drafting a threatening letter is cheap, and litigating with the likes of Jeppesen (Boeing) is going to cost millions, with low probability of positive outcome?
 
krwalsh said:
What strikes me as odd is that FlightPrep is not going after AOPA, Jeppesen, etc
Click to expand...

No surprise to me. They did attempt to get AOPA & Jeppesen to talk and they said pound sand. But unlike runway finder, both AOPA & Jepp have tremendous legal resources that could easily bankrupt FP in a protracted legal fight so no wonder FP (at least to this point) has declined to press them further.
 
krwalsh said:
What strikes me as odd is that FlightPrep is not going after AOPA, Jeppesen, etc. If they really believe they have a valid patent, why are they going after the little guys, and not the deep pockets? Is it because drafting a threatening letter is cheap, and litigating with the likes of Jeppesen (Boeing) is going to cost millions, with low probability of positive outcome?
Click to expand...

It may be FlightPrep's strategy to first "gather up" several of the smaller online flight planning service providers under licensing agreements in order to both solidify their market position and also bolster their standing in the event of a legal fight when they move against the "Bigs" like AOPA and Jeppesen.

BTW, I'm not supporting FlightPrep here...just opining on possible business strategies :cool:.
 
krwalsh said:
What strikes me as odd is that FlightPrep is not going after AOPA, Jeppesen, etc. If they really believe they have a valid patent, why are they going after the little guys, and not the deep pockets? Is it because drafting a threatening letter is cheap, and litigating with the likes of Jeppesen (Boeing) is going to cost millions, with low probability of positive outcome?
Click to expand...


(It should be noted that I have no evidence for what i say. ever.)

Ok, It has been posted somewhere that skyvector has bought a license from FP. There is an ad on skyvector, so perhaps it is worth it for them to have just ponied up the dough, so as to not deal with a lawsuit.

Since skyvector paid, FP would naturally expect everyone else to pay. Since runwayfinder doesn't make money, why would they pay for a license? When runwayfinder said no, they offered to give them a license hoping it would accept while having the threat of a lawsuit over their head.

By having all these licenses out there it will give more legitimacy to FP claim that they actually have a legal right to give licenses and therefore really have a legitimate patent.

FP won't sue AOPA or Jepp because I think they really are bluffing, and can't compete with their lawyers.

I would hope skyvector rejects FP's license, runwayfinder does not accept a free license and AOPA, JEPP, foreflight and others file a lawsuit against FP. Perhaps even a strongly worded letter from the above will put this all to rest.

I would also like to see people talk to their local FBO and have all ASA and related products returned and cancel contracts to sell them. I used to get my FAR/AIM every year from ASA, but not any more.

I know we may all be preaching to the choir here, but if we can keep this subject a priority, something will get done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top