N546RV
Well Known Member
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.
Quite frankly, to me it doesn't matter if they were the first people to put a track on an online map. Drawing that magenta line is not an invention; the apparatus that draws that line is the invention. In this particular case, that apparatus is a mass of code that was developed by FlightPrep. Now if someone else starts with a clean slate and builds a similar product, I don't consider that to be an identical or derivative invention. It particularly irks me to read FlightPrep referring to RunwayFinder using "their technology." That is utter bullcrap. The only way someone could be using their technology is if they got a hold of FP's source code, copied and/or massaged it, and then passed it off as their own creation.
Now, I am nowhere near being a lawyer, nor am I versed on patent law, so don't think that I'm trying to pass this off as anything but my opinion. But this is the reason why, regardless of the legal status, I have a problem with this whole patent infringement issue.