FlightPrep has proven that they are comfortable with being legal bullies, and stifling free, non-commercial ventures in pursuit of increased profit margins. This is the tactic they have chosen-- a dubiously patent. Some ski companies are trying this same tactic lately too, claiming that certain sidecut dimensions and camber profiles are their intellectual property and have been patented. It's a snow ski! It's been in use in various forms since before seal skin was en vogue and there is nothing new under the sun.

I'm sorry, but this is all pitiful and pathetic in my opinion, to claim that minute advances in a broader technology constitute protectable intellectual property. The information from the FAA aka the "travel regulatory agency" is public domain, paid for by taxpayers, and should be exempt from a patent definition.

As for FlightPrep being an Oregon company, I find it embarrassing.

Wow, this really pisses me off. Runwayfinder is/was one of my favorite flight planning / chart viewing sites.

FlightPrat wrote:This damage calculation exceeds $3.2 million per month in lost revenue.

$3.2 million per month... What are these guys smoking?

Hoping this gets resolved pronto.

Zane wrote:FlightPrep has proven that they are comfortable with being legal bullies, and stifling free, non-commercial ventures in pursuit of increased profit margins. This is the tactic they have chosen-- a dubiously patent. Your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I'm sorry, but this is all pitiful and pathetic in my opinion, to claim that minute advances in a broader technology constitute protectable intellectual property. The information from the FAA aka the "travel regulatory agency" is public domain, paid for by taxpayers, and should be exempt from a patent definition.

In my opinion. I am no expert, and I may be proved wrong. So be it. We are a nation of laws. This is a prime example of what the courts are for.

We have had this debate before on intellectual property rights. Music on our videos. I thought once we paid for music we should be able to use it. I think most of us agreed that people who make music should be compensated or we won't get good music if everybody steals it.

So why would airplane software be any different? If you invent a piece of software and get a patent, then anyone who wants steals it, why would you take the time, effort, and expense in the first place?

If Runway Finder is so positive they are right, then they should go all in. Poker term.

If Runway Finder is so in the right why isn't everybody paying lip service getting out their collective wallet's.

Anyone can use the government charts. FlightPrep didn't tell the FAA to take the charts off their website. IMO that is not what is being disputed. It is the route planning part, I think.

To get a new patent I think you only have to change something like 10% EZ Flap you should know something about this?? So all Runway Finder has to do is convince the court that their software is 10% different. Shouldn't be a problem reading all the post telling how FP sucks and RF is so perfect. I was reading RF owners blog.

Don't get me wrong. I like RF. It is a sweet site. But that is not the issue.

Good day

Actually, Runwayfinder.com IS the issue. RF has been around since before 2004 that I can recall. They did not steal ANY technology from FlightPrep. They use Google Maps, chart overlay images from NACO, and custom code that Dave wrote to overlay these sectional chart images. They use the FAA airport data to show airports, and you can get realtime METARS, once again pulled from the FAA's FTP server.

None of that is FlightPrep technology. They did not invent the web server, File Transfer Protocol, AJAX, TCP/IP, geolocation, METAR, nor do they provides the services of NACO or provide official airport data.

What exactly HAVE they patented? According to their PR, they have patented the ability to flight plan utilizing an internet server and FAA data. I could write that and offer it to you for free without ever studying FlightPrep's website or products, because web technologies like PHP and web servers, database queries, and trigonometry are not patentable. But according to this, FlightPrep's patent would make it possible for them to sue me for patent infringement if I offer it to you for free.

I know you like their products, but how can you support legally demanding a fee from a FREE website that only narrowly shares a commonly practiced discipline? If the products are so good, people will pay for them in lieu of the free ones. Ever heard of open source software? The commercial software biz hasn't exactly suffered as a result of competition with not-for-profit projects.

It's a weak and defensive tactic to secure a narrow niche of the software world because their products aren't revolutionary enough to lead the market. They're picking on the little guys who they know can't pay to defend themselves, and in the case of Skyvector.com, a little revenue stream results. I predict that it is the beginning of the end for FlightPrep though, because it signals that they are trying to increase revenue defensively rather than through standard marketing and development of actual revolutionary technologies. This is not onward and upward. It's backward and sideways. There are no cats left in this particular bag.

Just my opinion. Don't sue me.

RobBurson wrote:We have had this debate before on intellectual property rights. Music on our videos. I thought once we paid for music we should be able to use it. I think most of us agreed that people who make music should be compensated or we won't get good music if everybody steals it.

I disagree, people will always make music, good and bad. If you want to see someone in concert, you pay. You want to cover a song and put it on your album and sell it, you pay, although a pittance. You want to put a song on sheet music for others to play, you pay. You want to make a ski movie with music and charge people to come and watch it, you pay. You want to listen to music on the radio, oops, someone else is paying for that. You want to borrow your buddies CD and rip the music, already payed.
The courts are wrong on music sharing and they will probably be wrong on this. But RB is right that we live in a country of laws, whether good or bad we live with it.
Greed always rears its ugly head. And on a side note, I bought a lot more music during open Napster than I do now. Put your money where you believe it counts!

Justice will be served in direct proportion to the size of your wallet.

Zane wrote:I know you like their products, but how can you support legally demanding a fee from a FREE website that only narrowly shares a commonly practiced discipline? If the products are so good, people will pay for them in lieu of the free ones. Ever heard of open source software? The commercial software biz hasn't exactly suffered as a result of competition with not-for-profit projects.

It's a weak and defensive tactic to secure a narrow niche of the software world because their products aren't revolutionary enough to lead the market. They're picking on the little guys who they know can't pay to defend themselves, and in the case of Skyvector.com, a little revenue stream results. I predict that it is the beginning of the end for FlightPrep though, because it signals that they are trying to increase revenue defensively rather than through standard marketing and development of actual revolutionary technologies.

Just my opinion. Don't sue me.

I know you like their products: Yes but that is not the point.

How can you support legally demanding a fee from a FREE website: So you steal a patent and give it away free doesn't make it right.

If the products are so good, people will pay for them in lieu of the free one: If there is a stolen TV for free or go to the store and pay 800. There are always people who will take the stolen TV.

They're picking on the little guys who they know can't pay to defend themselves: Probably. But if you are going to send a message to people you believe are stealing your patent, it is cheaper not to mess with a big dog. If the Vans Airforce is so organized and powerful it might have been a bad choice to go after RF. Time will tell!

Ever heard of open source software? Yes and if they stole a software patent from Microsoft, Sun, etc. They would get sued for patent infringement.

In the case of Skyvector.com, a little revenue stream results. Apparently SkyV thinks FP has a valid patent.

Do you see there is more than one angle to look at this.

I'll bet you lunch at a restaurant of the winners choice that FP will prevail in court.

Good day

RobBurson wrote:So you steal a patient and give it away free doesn't make it right.

How can something you do today be considered stealing if a patent doesn't exist until 10 years from now? Do you not understand that no one has stolen any technology from FlightPrep? They are claiming that their magic combo of technologies, which is commonly used, is their unique recipe that no one else can now use, 6 years after runwayfinder.com implemented it.

Skyvector has chosen the path of least resistance so as to not have their revenue stream interrupted. 90% of your ad revenue is better than 0%, and is better than spending thousands to fight the battle. I guarantee you that the guy from skyvector.com pulled out a clump of his own hair.

You're on for the lunch bet. Might take a few years to resolve...

Here's my two cents.

Flight prep is a business that focuses on flight planning, not patent law.

They as a business contacted a patent attorney and the attorney, for a fee, a large one I would venture to guess, got them the patent. I would assume they went after the patent to protect something they developed and didn't want copied. They ended up with a patent, and perhaps they didn't get exactly what they sought to get, but they did get a patent.

Do you know how much it costs to get a patent?

It seems that what upsets people the most is the letters to entities that might be infringing on this patent, such as runway finder. Just remember that these letters are written buy attorneys trying to win the battle. Are they on commission?

I have had the displeasure of being involved in a law suit or two. I was on the offense, and I left with a very bitter taste in my mouth.

I guess I am just really jaded since I'm self employed. I'm pretty confident Flight Prep doesn't see this backlash coming. Are their attorneys in the back ground telling them how much money the can get them after their 20-30-40-50 percent cut? Just wondering?

Paul

This is another example of the patent office approving stuff that doesn't deserve to be patented. There is wording to the effect that the patent will only be granted for ideas that are not immediately obvious to people acquainted with the field of endeavor.

I worked in a high tech company that produced tons of patents. We also had some of our work poached, using a patent another company took out on something that we had been doing for years, but did not patent because it was "obvious".

tom

XKV8R wrote:Here's my two cents.

Flight prep is a business that focuses on flight planning, not patent law.

They as a business contacted a patent attorney and the attorney, for a fee, a large one I would venture to guess, got them the patent. I would assume they went after the patent to protect something they developed and didn't want copied. They ended up with a patent, and perhaps they didn't get exactly what they sought to get, but they did get a patent.

Do you know how much it costs to get a patent?

It seems that what upsets people the most is the letters to entities that might be infringing on this patent, such as runway finder. Just remember that these letters are written buy attorneys trying to win the battle. Are they on commission?

I have had the displeasure of being involved in a law suit or two. I was on the offense, and I left with a very bitter taste in my mouth.

I guess I am just really jaded since I'm self employed. I'm pretty confident Flight Prep doesn't see this _ coming. Are their attorneys in the back ground telling them how much money the can get them after their 20-30-40-50 percent cut? Just wondering?

Paul

I had not considered this angle. Good points.

Good day

http://blog.flightprep.com/2010/12/rega ... -down.html

Regarding RunwayFinder shutting down
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].

License Information

FlightPrep is an aviation software company founded by Roger Stenbock and Kyle Everson in 1997, and is the leader in Flight Planning and Electronic Flight Bag software, providing the next generation of electronic flight bags, flight planning and navigation software, and high quality digital geo-referenced navigation charts. Our team continues to lead the aviation software industry both online and in the cockpit.

As part of our commitment to the aviation community, we license some of our technology, services and/or products to third-party vendors. If you would like to learn more about obtaining a license from FlightPrep, please contact us at [email protected] or call (503) 678-4360.
Online Flight Planning

FlightPrep was awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,640,098 on December 29, 2009 for online flight planning. The patent was invented by Roger Stenbock and Kyle Everson and describes how flight planning is possible using an Internet browser to display charts and routes interactively from data stored on an Internet server. The invention cites the ability for the user to interactively modify routes without requiring the download of the entire chart after each change. The patent also covers the ability to receive flight plans from an Internet server as well as the ability to file flight plans generated by an Internet server with a travel regulating agency (U.S. Patent No. 7,640,098).
Contact
License Information
Stenbock and Everson, Inc. (d/b/a FlightPrep)
22781 Airport Rd NE, Suite D-1, Aurora, OR 97002
Phone: (503) 678-4360
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.flightprep.com/license

So much spinning, everyone involved must be dizzy.

If someone was strong-arming you, would you accept their temporary "license" to continue operating without injunction, while they decide how much blood they're going to squeeze out of you for a business you've been operating for 6+ years?

I know you fairly well, and I think you'd burn the house down before you let them milk you.

For the record, I do not think patents are unfair. They are necessary and appropriate in many cases, where someone is actually first to innovate.

Zane wrote:If someone was strong-arming you, would you accept their temporary "license" to continue operating without injunction, while they decide how much blood they're going to squeeze out of you for a business you've been operating for 6+ years?

Good point.

I would have taken the temporary license. At all cost I would try to work things out prior to spending my money to pay a lawyer to write a bunch of letters. Remember that when you are sued for someting it doesnt mean that you are at fault but you still have to defend your self. How many lawsuit result in a settlement because one party to the law suit decides it better to pay now than pay there attorney later. Sometimes in business it's wise to stuff your pride and pick the right fights.

I want to make it clear that I'm not defending either company involved in this case. It's just that litigation sucks!

If I heard that runway finder would have to spend 20-30-40-50k plus dollars with a law firm and then still have to pay royalties, I would think he would regret not being more cooperative to the hostage takers. What a shitty deal to be providing a free service or one that provides little profit and then being attacked by a for profit corporation.......

Cheers

Right or wrong it boils down to a free website with a few ads that probably produce a minimal amount of cash flow being unable to afford even a consultation with a lawyer much less being able to pay for a protracted legal dispute. Unlike the burglar having a public defender available for free a civil defendant has to beg, borrow, or steal free advice, or shell out 4 or 500 bucks an hour for years to defend themselves. Or shutdown and walk away. This case will be decided by $$$ not by the merits.

The cost is most likely the problem most of us have with the legal system in general.

They really kicked the hornets' nest over at Vans Airforce.

Kind of an amusing read.

More relevant reads on topic:
http://www.somebits.com/weblog/aviation/flightprep-patent-7640098.html

FlightPrep going after Jepp and AOPA:
http://www.aopa.org/flightplanning/articles/2010/101214AOPA_Flight_Planner_does_not_infringe_on_patent.html

The battle is starting to boil!!

Jeppesen, AOPA Ignore FlightPrep Patent

AOPA and Jeppesen, two of the largest players in the online flight planning business say a patent obtained by FlightPrep doesn't affect their products and they are not willing to discuss it. In a statement released Wednesday, AOPA says it will not meet with FlightPrep to discuss the patent and it will be business as usual for the product it provides. In fact, there's a new version coming out in a few weeks. FlightPrep didn't directly comment on AOPA and Jepp's reaction and had this to say. "FlightPrep has been in contact with Tom Haines and AOPA regarding our patent and online planner technology since 2007. FlightPrep is a small Oregon based business that is a proud AOPA advertiser, AOPA Summit participant, and our staff are proud members of AOPA as well as AOPA political action supporters"

Now what, the big dogs are calling FP bluff.

Good day

Someone posted this on the Van's sight. Highly appropriate.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/micros ... eroes,599/

New post up "The Way Forward" on the Runwayfinder blog: http://blog.runwayfinder.com/2010/12/17/the-road-forward

Dave is considering doing what many of us have been thinking: proving to the patent office that what flightprep is attempting to patent is something that numerous companies (mapquest to begin with) have been doing for decades, thus invalidating the patent.

He also makes a pretty clear case that even if the patent stands as it's written, it doesn't apply to runwayfinder anyway.

Hopefully things will get settled pretty soon. I've been working in the software industry for many years, and this sort of patent crap really irks me. Let's innovate, not litigate.