ccarter
Well Known Member
I?ve been following the FlightPrep/Runway Finder story for a few weeks now and all I can say is wow. I'm not sure I can say much that hasn?t been said in one form or another. What I would like to do is offer some observations on the subject in general.
I was able to locate a copy of the actual patent here FlightPrep Patent. After reading through it (and it doesn?t take that long) it became clear the patent holders are attempting to patent the idea of simply generating a flight plan on a server using a ?Flight Navigation Chart?, accessed from a client computer and delivered from the server computer across a network to the client computer. Included in the patent document are some basic process flow drawings that actually looked hand drawn. We use these all the time in my line of work. I?m a systems data architect. I design relational database systems that run corporate businesses.
In my line of work I frequently have to consider originality. While I understand people do not want their original ideas stolen I?ve learned that more than one person at a time can actually have the same idea. It has happened to me many times. It?s the nature of creative work. I live in Nashville. I moved here 11 years ago to be closer to the music business. I hold copyrights on a number of songs and orchestrations I?ve written, composed and arranged. One of the first things you learn in the creative business is there are some things that live in the public domain by necessity and cannot be copyrighted or perhaps in this case patented. How many songs have been written whose title is ?I Love You?? Try and copyright that title. You can?t and the reasons are obvious. For one you can?t copyright the title of a song and secondly one of the reasons for that, is the general use and application. The legalese covering the subject spells that out. A few months back FaceBook started the process to Trademark the word ?Face?. The general public consensus was the idea was absurd. Now it appears the Patent/Trademark office is going to allow this. Who knows what this will actually mean to the rest of us and why on earth FaceBook feels the need to do such a thing is beyond me. The act seems to forecast they want control at some level. Why else would they be doing it? I?m sure money is involved somewhere.
Years ago Apple Computer sued Microsoft over the graphical user interface or GUI as we call it. They lost. If I recall, the general reason was Microsoft succeeded in their argument of innovation and competition and the idea of interacting with a computer through an ease of use graphical interface was germane to digital computing. The result was Microsoft has used their market share gained through their version of this technology to run 70% of the world?s microcomputers to this day. Whether you love or hate Microsoft their impact on the world is obvious. While many of us can ?Neh? Microsoft about past business behaviors, their business model has been less proprietary in many ways compared to Apple. The market has agreed and voted with their checkbooks. Notwithstanding, Apple Computer has refused to go away and provided, in my humble opinion, much needed competition. Their product innovation over the years has been truly ?American? and they?ve been gaining market share ever since. And, I might add they?ve done it largely through good products and by winning the hearts and minds of customers. Perception is reality. Are you listening FlightPrep?
It is upon the basis of the above paragraph that I truly believe FlightPrep?s patent should and can be overturned. You don?t have to read much through the list of patents granted to begin to realize there are some really silly ideas that actually receive a patent. I?m not sure this one is any less silly. Drawing a line on a map between two points is the most basic of Euclidian activities we do as pilots. It is why we spend tens of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours building and flying our aircraft as experimental enthusiasts. Getting from A to B is what we?re all about. General aviation pilots are no less involved and they spend even more money on their equipment. For as long as men have sailed ships and used maps this has been true. It appears FlightPrep wants to make the distinction that because computers are now involved in doing something pilots of ships have been doing for centuries using computers of a ?non-electronic nature? they should some how now be able to collect money for it because it?s on the internet. Phooey. I think this is patently absurd, pun intended. The scary part is two fold. 1) The patent has already been issued and 2) this is not the first silly patent issued by the patent office, not by a long shot.
The internet has become a bastion worth fighting for. We as pilots are now experiencing our own little turf war in the on going struggle of net-neutrality. The size of the internet has reached enough critical mass that the empty space between squatters has shrunk enough for people to begin fighting over it. Aviation has suffered greatly in recent decades for a variety of reasons like public awareness, tort and government regulation. Most of us don?t fly because there?s money in it; we fly because it?s life. The resurgence in some of aviation owes a lot to the experimental category. It took some of the ridiculous cost out of our right to ride the ocean of air over our own country. I?m a businessman. I know you have to make money to stay in business but trying to patent the word ?Face? or the recipe for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches is really dumb.
I write software all the time that performs basic functions we need in everyday life and I?m not trying to patent any of that. There is nothing unique about using great circle formulas to calculate distance and course on a map. The formulas can be found in many places on the internet and delivering these co-ordinates on a map in a web browser whether it?s a sectional chart or not is as public domain as ham and eggs. Google Maps publishes an entire suite of tools for mapping and requires the user to keep it free if used on a public web site. The maps are not aviation per se but the terrain map gets close minus the aviation specific nomenclature. The point is the exercise is the same, traveling from A to B and doing it safely.
Part of the reason this situation got my attention is I created a little knee-board flight planner for myself. I did it for kicks and giggles and put it up on my website. It?s a work in progress but does something I wanted a flight planner to do by finding all of the VOR antennas along a course line and printing for my knee board. I fly GPS but the VOR?s are my backup. This takes much of the manual work out of planning a trip and increases the safety of flight by providing easy access to backup contingencies. I think what FlighPrep is doing is making safe and sound flight planning a little less accessible.
I predict this issue will be resolved in one of two ways. 1) FlightPrep will eventually run out of resources (both mental and economic) in attempts to defend a ridiculous patent due to the persistent human nature to meet supply and demand of web driven pilot navigation services and the commonality of those services or; 2) FlightPrep can realize they are trying to stop the tide from going in and out and accept that pilots are going to fly and that we stick together to keep it safe and within as much financial reach for as many pilots as possible. FlightPrep has really stuck their own thumb in their own eye on this one from a public relations perspective. Public opinion is a Juggernaut and can make or break almost any enterprise. Just ask Blockbuster video. They became the ?late fee? video rental company. Netflix solved the problem and now Blockbuster is gone.
I was able to locate a copy of the actual patent here FlightPrep Patent. After reading through it (and it doesn?t take that long) it became clear the patent holders are attempting to patent the idea of simply generating a flight plan on a server using a ?Flight Navigation Chart?, accessed from a client computer and delivered from the server computer across a network to the client computer. Included in the patent document are some basic process flow drawings that actually looked hand drawn. We use these all the time in my line of work. I?m a systems data architect. I design relational database systems that run corporate businesses.
In my line of work I frequently have to consider originality. While I understand people do not want their original ideas stolen I?ve learned that more than one person at a time can actually have the same idea. It has happened to me many times. It?s the nature of creative work. I live in Nashville. I moved here 11 years ago to be closer to the music business. I hold copyrights on a number of songs and orchestrations I?ve written, composed and arranged. One of the first things you learn in the creative business is there are some things that live in the public domain by necessity and cannot be copyrighted or perhaps in this case patented. How many songs have been written whose title is ?I Love You?? Try and copyright that title. You can?t and the reasons are obvious. For one you can?t copyright the title of a song and secondly one of the reasons for that, is the general use and application. The legalese covering the subject spells that out. A few months back FaceBook started the process to Trademark the word ?Face?. The general public consensus was the idea was absurd. Now it appears the Patent/Trademark office is going to allow this. Who knows what this will actually mean to the rest of us and why on earth FaceBook feels the need to do such a thing is beyond me. The act seems to forecast they want control at some level. Why else would they be doing it? I?m sure money is involved somewhere.
Years ago Apple Computer sued Microsoft over the graphical user interface or GUI as we call it. They lost. If I recall, the general reason was Microsoft succeeded in their argument of innovation and competition and the idea of interacting with a computer through an ease of use graphical interface was germane to digital computing. The result was Microsoft has used their market share gained through their version of this technology to run 70% of the world?s microcomputers to this day. Whether you love or hate Microsoft their impact on the world is obvious. While many of us can ?Neh? Microsoft about past business behaviors, their business model has been less proprietary in many ways compared to Apple. The market has agreed and voted with their checkbooks. Notwithstanding, Apple Computer has refused to go away and provided, in my humble opinion, much needed competition. Their product innovation over the years has been truly ?American? and they?ve been gaining market share ever since. And, I might add they?ve done it largely through good products and by winning the hearts and minds of customers. Perception is reality. Are you listening FlightPrep?
It is upon the basis of the above paragraph that I truly believe FlightPrep?s patent should and can be overturned. You don?t have to read much through the list of patents granted to begin to realize there are some really silly ideas that actually receive a patent. I?m not sure this one is any less silly. Drawing a line on a map between two points is the most basic of Euclidian activities we do as pilots. It is why we spend tens of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours building and flying our aircraft as experimental enthusiasts. Getting from A to B is what we?re all about. General aviation pilots are no less involved and they spend even more money on their equipment. For as long as men have sailed ships and used maps this has been true. It appears FlightPrep wants to make the distinction that because computers are now involved in doing something pilots of ships have been doing for centuries using computers of a ?non-electronic nature? they should some how now be able to collect money for it because it?s on the internet. Phooey. I think this is patently absurd, pun intended. The scary part is two fold. 1) The patent has already been issued and 2) this is not the first silly patent issued by the patent office, not by a long shot.
The internet has become a bastion worth fighting for. We as pilots are now experiencing our own little turf war in the on going struggle of net-neutrality. The size of the internet has reached enough critical mass that the empty space between squatters has shrunk enough for people to begin fighting over it. Aviation has suffered greatly in recent decades for a variety of reasons like public awareness, tort and government regulation. Most of us don?t fly because there?s money in it; we fly because it?s life. The resurgence in some of aviation owes a lot to the experimental category. It took some of the ridiculous cost out of our right to ride the ocean of air over our own country. I?m a businessman. I know you have to make money to stay in business but trying to patent the word ?Face? or the recipe for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches is really dumb.
I write software all the time that performs basic functions we need in everyday life and I?m not trying to patent any of that. There is nothing unique about using great circle formulas to calculate distance and course on a map. The formulas can be found in many places on the internet and delivering these co-ordinates on a map in a web browser whether it?s a sectional chart or not is as public domain as ham and eggs. Google Maps publishes an entire suite of tools for mapping and requires the user to keep it free if used on a public web site. The maps are not aviation per se but the terrain map gets close minus the aviation specific nomenclature. The point is the exercise is the same, traveling from A to B and doing it safely.
Part of the reason this situation got my attention is I created a little knee-board flight planner for myself. I did it for kicks and giggles and put it up on my website. It?s a work in progress but does something I wanted a flight planner to do by finding all of the VOR antennas along a course line and printing for my knee board. I fly GPS but the VOR?s are my backup. This takes much of the manual work out of planning a trip and increases the safety of flight by providing easy access to backup contingencies. I think what FlighPrep is doing is making safe and sound flight planning a little less accessible.
I predict this issue will be resolved in one of two ways. 1) FlightPrep will eventually run out of resources (both mental and economic) in attempts to defend a ridiculous patent due to the persistent human nature to meet supply and demand of web driven pilot navigation services and the commonality of those services or; 2) FlightPrep can realize they are trying to stop the tide from going in and out and accept that pilots are going to fly and that we stick together to keep it safe and within as much financial reach for as many pilots as possible. FlightPrep has really stuck their own thumb in their own eye on this one from a public relations perspective. Public opinion is a Juggernaut and can make or break almost any enterprise. Just ask Blockbuster video. They became the ?late fee? video rental company. Netflix solved the problem and now Blockbuster is gone.
