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

Peterk said:
Our guardians are asleep...tired from reading their balance sheets.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Should the EAA and Jepp Be Involved--YES!

jtrollin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Dissertation

MartySantic said:
A very good dissertation on the Flightprep/RunwayFinder issue.

http://bit.ly/dN6ecs
Click to expand...

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

http://boycottflightprep.com/
Click to expand...

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:
 
Gary Baker said:
so I replaced it and added to it. Unbelievable arrogance!
Click to expand...



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.
 
Last edited:
I posted this to a vendor.

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.
 
jtrollin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sam Buchanan said:
Why? The thread is averaging 20 posts/day. ;)
Click to expand...

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]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's just business

Peterk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
Phil said:
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
Click to expand...

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)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Phil said:
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
Click to expand...

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."
 
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.
 
Capflyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
It's a...

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
 
Apps

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.
 
A dissent

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).
 
hevansrv7a said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Heavensrv7a is clearly a minority opinion....

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 said:
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."
Click to expand...

How does their litigation promote the progress of science or useful arts?
 
Jamie said:
How does their litigation promote the progress of science or useful arts?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Snowflake said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 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.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why the courts simply gloss over this statute.
 
Jamie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
bhassel said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
Jamie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 here:



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

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


As an active patent attorney, what is your take on the attempts to invalidate this particular patent?
 
Snowflake said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
eric_marsh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Where in the World is AOPA & EAA

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.
 
Just downloaded and installed the new Duat Voyager

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top