boycott flightprep

[JoeB]

I don't if anyone else has been outraged as so many of our flight planning websites have been shut down as a result of the flight prep patent. 
I have found a online petition
here is the link if anyone cares to sign it.  I am not associated with the who started it,  but I want to get the word out.

you dont see banks patenting online banking,  so why is online flight planning going down this path. 

http://boycottflightprep.com/
Joe

[GeorgePerry]

I'm in...I want navmonster back.

5 min's later....

WOW...THAT'S QUITE A LIST, and the senitment seems universal.  If fligthprep had stock - I'd sell it short.

[docket]

The Flightprep patent pissed me off enough that I cancelled my subscription.  Hopefully the Foreflight guys will remain out of the fray. 

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: docket

The Flightprep patent pissed me off enough that I cancelled my subscription.  Hopefully the Foreflight guys will remain out of the fray. 

[Earl]

First of all I have no dog in this hunt (don't use any of the referenced products) but I do know patent issues and I would suggest before jumping on the bandwagon with a boycott website that you do a little checking.  I have not confirmed the validity of the information but you might want to at least visit the Flighrprep website (http://blog.flightprep.com/2010/12/myth-vs-fact-regarding-flightprep.html) for their side of the story.  If true, then I would respectfully submit that this boycott may be misguided.  Yes it was created by their people but whoever created the boycott website is totally anonomous which always gives me pause and makes me suspicious. 

The fact is that if Flightprep has a patent they have every right, and in fact an obligation to their shareholders, to protect the patent.  I have no idea whether their claim is legitimate but that's what courts or arbitration is for if it can't be negotiated.  But they do have the right to protect their intellectual property.

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: ehscott

if Flightprep has a patent they have every right, and in fact an obligation to their shareholders, to protect the patent.  But they do have the right to protect their intellectual property.

Just because something is legally justifiable in a court - doesn't make it right.  There's no bandwagon to jump on here...fact is flightprep doesn't have any shareholders and all they've done is forced some great websites out of business.  Instead of playing legal games maybe they should improve their product, complete in an open, fair market and let the consumers decide who to patronize.  The day we subordninate common sense to mindless rule-following will be a sad day indeed. 

[flight2000]

If the fact vs. myth was published by anyone but FP, I would be more inclined to listen.  However, it is published by the same folks that claim they placed no "damages" on the runwayfinder lawsuit, yet Mr. Parson has the letter stating $3.2 million in damages during the month of Juy when he had over 22,000 site hits.  FP's lawyers claim that each of those visits represents a direct loss from FP sales at $149 dollars a pop.  I visited runwayfinder almost daily before I left in July, so I can assure them I was in no way or shape a loss for FP.  Their claims are absurd if you ask me.  Hopefully, he will get a fair trial and expose FP for what they are.

As for their patent.  Try, try, and try again until you get it right.  It took them 7 attempts to get their patent approved.  Whoever approved it, needs to have their head examined because they did little to no homework to see if their was any prior art (which from everything I read there was) prior to the patent application date of 2001.  The second patent they are looking to get approved now would directly target Google, Bing, and any other software company that utilizes maps on the internet. 

FP is forever a lost cause for me.

Brian

[Earl]

Quote: GeorgePerry

[Earl]

Quote: flight2000

If the fact vs. myth was published by anyone but FP, I would be more inclined to listen.  However, it is published by the same folks that claim they placed no "damages" on the runwayfinder lawsuit, yet Mr. Parson has the letter stating $3.2 million in damages during the month of Juy when he had over 22,000 site hits.  FP's lawyers claim that each of those visits represents a direct loss from FP sales at $149 dollars a pop.  I visited runwayfinder almost daily before I left in July, so I can assure them I was in no way or shape a loss for FP.  Their claims are absurd if you ask me.  Hopefully, he will get a fair trial and expose FP for what they are.

As for their patent.  Try, try, and try again until you get it right.  It took them 7 attempts to get their patent approved.  Whoever approved it, needs to have their head examined because they did little to no homework to see if their was any prior art (which from everything I read there was) prior to the patent application date of 2001.  The second patent they are looking to get approved now would directly target Google, Bing, and any other software company that utilizes maps on the internet. 

FP is forever a lost cause for me.

Brian

[rob]

Quote: GeorgePerry

[scottfromiowa]

"you dont see banks patenting online banking,  so why is online flight planning going down this path." Joe quote

Joe, banks make their revenue by fees and investments  Online banking is a "service"...in the case of flight prep the software IS THEIR REVENUE...

Isn't this why we have a patent office and a court system?  It will be settled.  Free is good why you get it, but generally nothing IS "FREE".

[flight2000]

Quote: ehscott

[Earl]

Brian, I gotcha and I too am watching from afar as things develop.  More out of morbid curiosity than anything else.

I have some intellectual property patents pending that we spent millions of dollars developing.  If they are granted and others decide to financially benefit from our hard work and innovation we will try to enforce the patents.  I not only think it is my right to do so but it is the right thing to do.  What is wrong is when someone takes intellectual property and financially benefits from it.  The fastest way to stymie innovation is to not protect the idea so the inventor gets the benefit.

[docket]

Off with their heads.

[GeorgePerry]

Regardless of what side you come down on, (right, wrong or indifferent) one thing is for sure....public sentiment has turned strongly against FP.  I agree that protecting IP with patents is lawful and in most cases "right".  But in this case I think pursuing patent infringement lawsuits will cost them more in the long run.  Time will tell.

[Earl]

Quote: GeorgePerry

Regardless of what side you come down on, (right, wrong or indifferent) one thing is for sure....public sentiment has turned strongly against FP.  I agree that protecting IP with patents is lawful and in most cases "right".  But in this case I think pursuing patent infringement lawsuits will cost them more in the long run.  Time will tell.

[rogerl]

What is slipping under the rug here is the argument that the patent itself is frivolous.  From the text of the patent, my opinion it that the patent itself is pretty nebulous.  Software patents and process must be reformed so that they are specific and meaningful.

The true fools here are the clueless folks at the USPTO who are being used time and time again for very general software patents that will eventually fall to time consuming and expensive litigation.  Meanwhile, folks like the guy at navmonster abandon what was a worthwhile service that got paid for by minimal advertising - thereby stifling the much vaunted 'innovation' ... I guess innovation is only cool if it serves your particular purpose ...

Ever heard of google?  Look at what they are providing for "free" (if you don't mind being a commodity that they sell to their advertisers, that is).

We all pay for this, and running the court system ain't cheap.  Our tax dollars would be better spent with the USPTO hiring a team who better understands software issues, thereby nipping the problem in the bud.

[Earl]

Quote: rogerl

What is slipping under the rug here is the argument that the patent itself is frivolous.  From the text of the patent, my opinion it that the patent itself is pretty nebulous.  Software patents and process must be reformed so that they are specific and meaningful.

The true fools here are the clueless folks at the USPTO who are being used time and time again for very general software patents that will eventually fall to time consuming and expensive litigation.  Meanwhile, folks like the guy at navmonster abandon what was a worthwhile service that got paid for by minimal advertising - thereby stifling the much vaunted 'innovation' ... I guess innovation is only cool if it serves your particular purpose ...

Ever heard of google?  Look at what they are providing for "free" (if you don't mind being a commodity that they sell to their advertisers, that is).

We all pay for this, and running the court system ain't cheap.  Our tax dollars would be better spent with the USPTO hiring a team who better understands software issues, thereby nipping the problem in the bud.

[docket]

Off with their heads.

[hansel]

Quote: ehscott

I don't think the argument about the validity of the patent is slipping under the rug.  I have no opinion one way or the other but I find it hard to believe that you can draw any definitive conclusion based on a cursory reading of the patent unless you study the underlying application where the detail is presented. Again, maybe you and others have done more to evaluate this than I have but it does not change my view that signing onto an anonymous boycott website without really understanding the underlying facts is not something that I would do.

I do agree with you about the need for more expertise at USPTO when it comes to intellectual property patents.  The current state of the art in designing these patent applications (i.e., as a machine or flow chart) is woefully inadequate.  I can tell you from experience it is not easy to get a patent for something like this, often because of iterations caused by an inadequate understanding of the underlying invention because of how it must be presented in the application.

[hansel]

Quote: docket

Off with their heads.

[rogerl]

Quote: ehscott

I don't think the argument about the validity of the patent is slipping under the rug.  I have no opinion one way or the other but I find it hard to believe that you can draw any definitive conclusion based on a cursory reading of the patent unless you study the underlying application where the detail is presented. Again, maybe you and others have done more to evaluate this than I have but it does not change my view that signing onto an anonymous boycott website without really understanding the underlying facts is not something that I would do.

[jax88]

Personally, I think we have Patent Offices and a court system so that attorneys can insure employment.

[Earl]

Quote: jax88

Personally, I think we have Patent Offices and a court system so that attorneys can ensure employment.

[jax88]

Quote: ehscott

I'm no fan of either but if you look at what is necessary for progress the rule of law is number one.  Sadly you need some arbiter of the rule of law and someone to represent you with that arbiter. 

Imagine either the lack of desire for innovation and research or the chaos if someone can't seek protection for what they produce, including intellectual property.  I can tell you we spent millions of dollars of ours and an investor's money developing a very unique and creative approach that will have significant positive impact for the environment but I would have never invested over one million dollars of mine and my partner's money, nor could I have gotten a pension fund to provide us with fifteen million dollars if we didn't present a strategy for protecting our intellectual property.  And that protection included seeking a series of patents.  Otherwise why would I spend all that money for someone else to take my idea and make money off it?  Simple answer, I wouldn't nor would any rational person.

We need the rule of law and unfortunately that provides employment for USPTO and law firm employees.