FlightPrep online planning patent

I should really urge to quickly ditch your cellphoneas Apple is making all kinds of claims about what they invented. But that is nothing new to them. After all they also claimed the first graphic icon display in their computers. Too bad Xerox had already invented it.

Xerox (PARC) invented the GUI - Windows, menus, etc. Unfortunately, their own people were too stupid to actually do anything with it - So they showed it to Steeeeeve.

Apple expanded on the idea - And it was Apple that invented the "Finder" with icons, folders, etc. The Lisa, Apple's first GUI computer, wasn't a whole lot more than what Xerox invented. The Mac was a bigger, badder animal. Later, the Mac OS was written as a replacement for the Lisa OS on the Lisa hardware, and they started referring to the Lisa as the "Macintosh XL." I wonder if that had anything to do with Xerox...

And did Xerox ever actually patent the GUI? :dunno:
 
I wish Nick would have run runwayfinder. He would have stood his ground.
 
Well I for one thinks that the quality of the Stenbock & Everson software sucks. I use their Golden Eagle software (only the free version) and it just doesn't feel like a quality application. The user interface does not adhere to industry standards, some features don't work (an example is using a sectional view) and has annoying navigation. The Weight And Balance form allows resizing, but does not resize the controls within it...try it yourself. Fonts are different sizes and styles, the menus are all over the place and very unintuitive....I could go on.

Ok, I'm a bit of a software snob being a software developer myself, but if Stenbock & Everson really wants to compete against other suppliers of similar software they should start supplying better quality products instead of intimidating them out of the running.
 
"Some tweaks"?

Seriously?
Yes. The biggest thing they did to solve the problem of flight was to fix the math on airfoil design. The 2nd biggest part was that they came up with the rudder to counteract adverse yaw. They neither invented the wing nor the rudder. Gliders had been flying for what? A couple of decades when the Wrights flew their machine. Even then the idea of controlled flight had already been proven Alberto Santo-DuMont had demonstrated that in dirigibles in 1901.
 
Last edited:
all we know if that they were initially notified and that the plaintiff wanted to discuss under NDA, which is typical and normal. RunwayFinder then chose to ignore the plaintiff so a lawsuit was filled. Sort of sounds like they f'ed up a little.

That seems to be exactly what happened. Exhibit 2 is the letter sent to runwayfinder to open a dialog, that was ignored.

If anyone is interested, I've got the complaint and associated materials available at

www.pocketfire.net/Runwayfinder
 
Semantics. If I pull a gun on someone and tell them to hand over their wallet or else I'll kill them, and they hand me their wallet, it's still me forcing them to do so. Ok, so I didn't TAKE it like a purse snatcher, but the end result is the same - the person is without their wallet.

'Cept in this case it was runwayfinder who was engaged in theft, and Flightprep simply asserted their rights not to be stolen from.
 
Yes. The biggest thing they did to solve the problem of flight was to fix the math on airfoil design. The 2nd biggest part was that they came up with the rudder to counteract adverse yaw. They neither invented the wing nor the rudder. Gliders had been flying for what? A couple of decades when the Wrights flew their machine. Even then the idea of controlled flight had already been proven Alberto Santo-DuMont had demonstrated that in dirigibles in 1901.

You need to do a bit more reading.

Wright acccomplishments:
  • Wind tunnel
  • Ailerons (wing warping)
  • Lightweight, high power internal combustion engine
  • Propellers
  • Rudder for adverse yaw
The fact is the Wrights were flying a heavier than air craft hours and tens of miles before anyone else, including Santos-Dumont, who admitted their advances.

I think Santos-Dumont and Glenn Curtiss were innovators, but neither was in the same category at the same time as the Wright Brothers.
 
I can only hope that they try to force someone big like Garmin into licensing. We'll see how that works out for them.
I suspect that they hope the same thing. Garmin will come to see that fighting in court or paying annual fees will, in the long run, eat into their profits significantly. They will offer to buy FlightPrep with an eye toward crushing all their competition. Google will get wind of it and offer even more for exactly the same reason. The FlightPrep guys will sell, line their pockets, and go fishing for the rest of their lives.
I don't think anyone's arguing about the legality. It's the morality we disagree about.
Agreed.
 
'Cept in this case it was runwayfinder who was engaged in theft, and Flightprep simply asserted their rights not to be stolen from.

Proof of alleged theft? To me theft would be hacking flightpreps servers and stealing the software. Are you saying they did this?
 
Proof of alleged theft? To me theft would be hacking flightpreps servers and stealing the software. Are you saying they did this?

I think the Supreme Court has distinguished between theft and infringement, but I'm not sure.
 
I think the Supreme Court has distinguished between theft and infringement, but I'm not sure.

True...IP infringement is not theft, but I was going with his metaphor...

As for proof of infringement: Packing up and going home without a fight implies there were not the grounds to fight.
 
I suspect that they hope the same thing. Garmin will come to see that fighting in court or paying annual fees will, in the long run, eat into their profits significantly. They will offer to buy FlightPrep with an eye toward crushing all their competition. Google will get wind of it and offer even more for exactly the same reason. The FlightPrep guys will sell, line their pockets, and go fishing for the rest of their lives.
I really don't think there is any chance Google is going to pay any sort of money for their patent. There are TONS of companies out there with ridiculous software patents. Google generally isn't one to cave and they hold enough patents to crush anyone that tries to use a patent against them. They have enough lawyers on staff to run FlightPrep broke without much of any cost to them.

I also doubt Garmin would buy them out either.

We'll see how this plays out but I personally think it's a sad move and the beginning of the end for FlightPrep.
 
We'll see how this plays out but I personally think it's a sad move and the beginning of the end for FlightPrep.

Tell that to NTP...they're doing quite well off of their licensing with RIM, and now they're headed off against other game.
 
True...IP infringement is not theft, but I was going with his metaphor...

As for proof of infringement: Packing up and going home without a fight implies there were not the grounds to fight.

Or that they couldn't afford to. But just reading the patent is what implies to me that there were not the grounds to fight, unless they could show there was an invalid claim in the patent.
 
Tell that to NTP...they're doing quite well off of their licensing with RIM, and now they're headed off against other game.

On the other hand, anybody remember SCO? (No, I don't really think the cases are analogous.)
 
I'm a Master CNE, so when they went after Novell, I was might peeved.

I was (and still am) a heavy Linux user, so I was pretty relieved when they went after one of the 800lb gorillas instead of the little guys. Not a smart move on their part.

Edit - actually, now I mostly just use Ubuntu - maybe I can't claim to be a 'heavy' user anymore :blush:
 
True...IP infringement is not theft, but I was going with his metaphor...

As for proof of infringement: Packing up and going home without a fight implies there were not the grounds to fight.

I didn't steal his wallet, he gave it to me. :rolleyes:
 
True...IP infringement is not theft, but I was going with his metaphor...

As for proof of infringement: Packing up and going home without a fight implies there was not the MONEY to fight.

Fixed for accuracy.
 
You need to do a bit more reading.
You are quoting history and not the patent. Read the patent. Then look at the history and you will find that they did very little to INVENT an airplane. What they did was to refine existing designs, fix a math mistake and add some more to the sum of knowledge on control
Wright acccomplishments:
  • Wind tunnel
  • Ailerons (wing warping)
  • Lightweight, high power internal combustion engine
  • Propellers
  • Rudder for adverse yaw
The fact is the Wrights were flying a heavier than air craft hours and tens of miles before anyone else, including Santos-Dumont, who admitted their advances.

I think Santos-Dumont and Glenn Curtiss were innovators, but neither was in the same category at the same time as the Wright Brothers.
The wind tunnel is not part of their patent nor was it a new invention. If you really want to get into what they did there with that wind tunnel that was novel was to use balances to measure the affects on airfoil design. You should read some of the history about the Wrights, it is fascinating. I recommend the Bishop's Boys. It even gets into a lot of the patent fights that they had.

The ailerons are mentioned in the patent but their main control ability was the wing warping and was new but others were using types of control, weight shift was one, so the idea of changing lift was not new, just the method. Sort of like a new software process.

Propellers were not new or novel. That the Wrights had learned through testing that the arifoil design formulas were flawed was their break through.

Let me ask you this. Is is possible to patent a correction to bad math? Ponder that for a while.

The rudder was not new either. But using it to address adverse yaw was.

So lets summarize the inventions.

Fixed the math and used the rudder a new way.

Where have I heard this all before????

Oh yeah, in the post of mine that you quoted.

Yes. The biggest thing they did to solve the problem of flight was to fix the math on airfoil design. The 2nd biggest part was that they came up with the rudder to counteract adverse yaw. They neither invented the wing nor the rudder. Gliders had been flying for what? A couple of decades when the Wrights flew their machine. Even then the idea of controlled flight had already been proven Alberto Santo-DuMont had demonstrated that in dirigibles in 1901.
 
We'll see how this plays out but I personally think it's a sad move and the beginning of the end for FlightPrep.
That is a risk. The big boys could really come at them. One way to defend against these suits is to then assert one's IP against the aggressor. I am sure that Garmin and Google each have way more IP than FlightPrep. If they came out guns a blazing FlightPrep would be in lawyer hell.
 
This just in:

Update 12/10/2010 2:30pm PST
A preliminary verbal agreement has been reached. Assuming we can work out the details over the next few days, RunwayFinder will remain online. I appreciate all of the messages of support. Sorry if I’m not able to respond to everybody personally. I’ll update this post as things progress.


http://blog.flightprep.com/2010/12/open-letter-regarding-our-online-flight.html
 
Well, that's potentially good news. I still think it's preposterous that they patented the whole idea of an internet flight planner, but I'd really hate to see runwayfinder go away.
 
You are quoting history and not the patent. Read the patent. Then look at the history and you will find that they did very little to INVENT an airplane. What they did was to refine existing designs, fix a math mistake and add some more to the sum of knowledge on control
The wind tunnel is not part of their patent nor was it a new invention. If you really want to get into what they did there with that wind tunnel that was novel was to use balances to measure the affects on airfoil design. You should read some of the history about the Wrights, it is fascinating. I recommend the Bishop's Boys. It even gets into a lot of the patent fights that they had.

The ailerons are mentioned in the patent but their main control ability was the wing warping and was new but others were using types of control, weight shift was one, so the idea of changing lift was not new, just the method. Sort of like a new software process.

Propellers were not new or novel. That the Wrights had learned through testing that the arifoil design formulas were flawed was their break through.

Let me ask you this. Is is possible to patent a correction to bad math? Ponder that for a while.

The rudder was not new either. But using it to address adverse yaw was.

So lets summarize the inventions.

Fixed the math and used the rudder a new way.

Where have I heard this all before????

Oh yeah, in the post of mine that you quoted.

Reductionism is not argument.

The Wright Brothers invented the heavier than air craft, beat all others before and contemporary, while solved several key problems in aerodynamics.

You diminish their achievement and I can only wonder why...?
 
This just in:

Update 12/10/2010 2:30pm PST
A preliminary verbal agreement has been reached. Assuming we can work out the details over the next few days, RunwayFinder will remain online. I appreciate all of the messages of support. Sorry if I’m not able to respond to everybody personally. I’ll update this post as things progress.


http://blog.flightprep.com/2010/12/open-letter-regarding-our-online-flight.html

Wrong link - FlightPrep has said nothing. RunwayFinder has:

http://blog.runwayfinder.com/2010/12/09/runwayfinder-going-offline/
 
When big companies like Microsoft, Apple, HTC, Palm, etc fight patent battles it's OK, its part of their business but when small patent trolls start poping their heads that's hurt end users. As has been said before software patents suck big time. In so many cases it becomes absurd. There is a perfect example.
 
http://blog.flightprep.com/2010/12/flightprep-grants-runwayfinder.html

Although we believe RunwayFinder infringes on our patent, we also believe it is in the best interests of pilots to have RunwayFinder as an operational website. Accordingly, we have offered to grant a free-license to RunwayFinder to operate its website during this negotiation phase 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.


Posted on Monday, December 13, 2010

As of the time of this post RunwayFinder was online.

I initially used FliteSoft in the DOS days and switched to Flitestar (a Stenbock product) after a few years, mainly due to FliteStar's improved screen graphics, and followed it to Jeppesen until Jepp demonstrated on several occasions their inability to provide timely and competent enduser support for the product. I have since returned to Flitesoft as my primary flight planning tool and am quite satisfied with it. I have used RunawayFinder on occasion and find it very intuitive, but it is not my primary source for flight planning information.
 
Last edited:
As of the time of this post RunwayFinder was online.

Not any more. :(

http://blog.runwayfinder.com/2010/12/09/runwayfinder-going-offline/

RunwayFinder now offline

Update 12/13/2010 11:25PM PST

I was hoping to be able to work out an agreement with FlightPrep where the lawsuit against RunwayFinder would be withdrawn and the website could stay online in return for some free advertising and removal of this entire blog post. FlightPrep has instead decided to keep the lawsuit active, so unfortunately RunwayFinder must be shut down. FlightPrep has posted some sort of temporary license on their website instead of contacting me directly, but unfortunately does not provide relief from their claimed damages.
 
Interesting. The games continue.

It seemed that he got his free license so additional damages should not have been a problem. The original damage amount was based on number of hits to his website multiplied by $149 (the amount to buy FlightPrep's product). The theory being for ever hit at his website FlightPrep lost a sale. An interesting and completely ludicrous method to asses damages. So even if he were to go to court that number would be greatly reduced. I think he is trying to still use public opinion to remove the law suit. What is not clear to me is how fast the lawsuit can be stopped. It has only been a day or two. I would think that FlightPrep could have made an oral agreement to start the withdrawal proceedings. I get the feeling that these two are not really talking in real time and are using blogs to pass information.
 
http://blog.flightprep.com/2010/12/flightprep-grants-runwayfinder.html

Although we believe RunwayFinder infringes on our patent, we also believe it is in the best interests of pilots to have RunwayFinder as an operational website. Accordingly, we have offered to grant a free-license to RunwayFinder to operate its website during this negotiation phase 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.


Posted on Monday, December 13, 2010

What a crock. So they invented ODBC connections and HTML code? I'm waiting to hear that they have applied for a patent on the internet since they were the ones that thought it was a good idea to have ability to access a lot of information from a single computer.
 
I get the feeling that these two are not really talking in real time and are using blogs to pass information.

I get the feeling that FlightPrep's blog and their lawyers aren't saying the same thing, and that Dave feels he should believe the lawyers over the blog.
 
The blog sounds like "we will pretend to be nice while we sue your ass" to me.

Runwayfinder seems to be saying "Surrender and then we'll talk."

Demanding that they withdraw their suit before they even talk, after being offered a gratis license, is IMHO, whining.
 
I get the feeling that FlightPrep's blog and their lawyers aren't saying the same thing, and that Dave feels he should believe the lawyers over the blog.
Given that Dave, at Runway Finder, had acknowledged early on that he purposely was ignoring the letter from FlightPrep, I kinda of can't blame them for not wanting to pull the suit until things are fully settled.

I'm just saying that there is a lot of whining going on from Dave and not much that sounds constructive. Given that he could now be operating under a free license and that other have settled, amicably from all appearances, I am a bit baffled as to why he wants to continue to fight this out in public. Other than to gain sympathy and the hopes that the pilot community will bully FlightPrep into acquiescence I see no advantage to his strategy.
 
Last edited:
Runwayfinder seems to be saying "Surrender and then we'll talk."

Demanding that they withdraw their suit before they even talk, after being offered a gratis license, is IMHO, whining.

Withdrawing a suit would not preclude them from filing again, right?
 
Withdrawing a suit would not preclude them from filing again, right?

Not necessarily, but they would have to go through the entire filing process again with a opponent who has simply ignored their requests to negotiate in the past.

It's not like they're going to get a judgement tomorrow. Sign the NDA, get the free license, talk, then come back and dispose of the suit.
 
This wont mess with fltplan.com right? that would cause a major scene.
 
I would love to see someone (SkyVector, RunwayFinder) gang up with Google and let the big dog fight. I think Google (or Yahoo or MapQuest or ???) might have something to say about a patent on mapping/route planning online.

I wonder if FlightPrep has contacted the big guys to inform them that THEY are the ones that came up with drawing pink lines on a map on a webpage? Probably not...

Question: Can a patent be revoked? If a group made valid arguments that a patent doesn't apply to any 'proprietary' type of technology, could the patent be revoked?
 
Back
Top