Our guardians are asleep...tired from reading their balance sheets.
I just searched "flightprep" on facebook and a couple pages came up. One also has links to an online petition.Is there a boycot flightprep facebook group we can all start to join yet?
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.
If anyone is interested, below is the link to sign a petition to boycott flight prep.
http://boycottflightprep.com/
so I replaced it and added to it. Unbelievable arrogance!
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.
The moderators should make this thread a STICKY until resolved.
Why? The thread is averaging 20 posts/day.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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."
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.How does their litigation promote the progress of science or useful arts?
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.
(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.
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.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.
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
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:
I have no idea why the courts simply gloss over this statute.
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.
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.
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.
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.