Just saw this note on one of my favorite and most useful websites.
Dave Parsons is an RV builder/owner and based on my experience with him, a great guy. I will really miss the site.
It sounds to me like these parties need to sit down with Obama for beers at the White House ...
I've been trying to log on to the AOPA web site on several different occasions this afternoon, and I can't get it to come up on my browser. Since RunwayFinder has been shut down (or is that "shot" down?) I thought I'd use the AOPA Flight planner instead.
I can't get it to load...do you suppose...oh, I don't think so...no, no...but do you think the guy has taken on AOPA??? Surely not, although based on what I've read, S&E (FP) has just as much legal authority to say AOPA's Flight Planner infringes on their patent. Just seems strange, though. Hmmm.
Can anyone else get a hit from www.aopa.org?
A friend of mine forwarded me this link that It hits the nail on the head as far as why Runway Finder was targeted.
http://www.somebits.com/weblog/aviation/flightprep-patent-7640098.html
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.
AOPA has been advised by its flight planning partner, Jeppesen, that the online flight planning methods employed by the AOPA Internet Flight Planner, which is powered by Jeppesen, do not infringe on the patent recently awarded to FlightPrep.
I hate it when grownups can't resolve a problem honestly. From the above link, this:
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].
So, who is telling the truth? One side or the other is not being honest.
"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."
This sounds cooperative. Am I missing something?
Translation: We (Jeppesen, owned by Boeing) have a lot more and better lawyers than you have at FlightPrep. So p*** off!
Wow. This reminds me of the JPI vs. Matronics deal from the late 90s. JPI may have won the battle, but to this day you don't see many RVs with their products in the panel (nor should you ever.) They've just alienated a large chunk of their potential customer base.
"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."
This sounds cooperative. Am I missing something?
What about a good old fashion boycott campaign of FlightPrep?
When Boycott FlightPrep banners start popping up all over the web I'd think FlightPrep may just go away for good.
- Build a page listing the reason for the boycott.
- Make a banner which web site owners could post on their home page with a link to the page above.
Frank Holbert
http://160knots.com
Bingo.If RunwayFinder would accept a temporary license, it would strengthen FlightPrep's case.
So is this what the 60's felt like?
Listers,
This thread is rapidly turning toward an ugly personal nature instead of discussing the points of difference between the two parties involved.
I fear these personal references are going to put Doug in a very awkward and potentially vulnerable position. This moderator will henceforth delete any additional posts of this nature. Discuss the marketing aspect of this matter if you wish, but messages that could be considered as libelous will not be allowed.
I'm surprised the thread wasn't closed 7 pages ago. I think we're preaching to the choir here, we all agree that FP is being a patent bully, nothing more.I fear these personal references are going to put Doug in a very awkward and potentially vulnerable position. This moderator will henceforth delete any additional posts of this nature. Discuss the marketing aspect of this matter if you wish, but messages that could be considered as libelous will not be allowed.
I think we're preaching to the choir here, we all agree that FP is being a patent bully, nothing more.
TechDirt just picked up on the plight of RunwayFinder and they have, as usual, a pretty darn good write up here. There is a link to the actual suit filed by FlightPrep on the page as well.
So are you suggesting the builder community should just plain give up on a small company that is providing a FREE service to all of us.
Maybe VAF could have a "Vendor Good Guy" forum where posters can make comments about vendor experiences. This way these types of things don't get forgotten 6 months or a year down the road. A seperate forum would make it easy to search for feedback about a vendor before making a purchase.
Not at all, don't be silly. But we've already put 15 pages of support out there. After a certain point, it starts to degenerate into a bad area that the mods have already needed to step in and control. Posting personal contact info for the principals at FP, for example. That invites contact that can border on assault and opens DR and VAF.net up to legal hassles that didn't exist when it was just FP attacking RF.So are you suggesting the builder community should just plain give up on a small company that is providing a FREE service to all of us.
Except for possibly following KentB's impressive 48 state flight this summer, I don't recall using Runway Finder.
I don't use AOPA, DUATS or similar services. I use my SkyChart, Airnav, aviationweather.gov, and Flight Service for TFRs.
What strikes me as odd is that FlightPrep is not going after AOPA, Jeppesen, etc
What strikes me as odd is that FlightPrep is not going after AOPA, Jeppesen, etc. If they really believe they have a valid patent, why are they going after the little guys, and not the deep pockets? Is it because drafting a threatening letter is cheap, and litigating with the likes of Jeppesen (Boeing) is going to cost millions, with low probability of positive outcome?
What strikes me as odd is that FlightPrep is not going after AOPA, Jeppesen, etc. If they really believe they have a valid patent, why are they going after the little guys, and not the deep pockets? Is it because drafting a threatening letter is cheap, and litigating with the likes of Jeppesen (Boeing) is going to cost millions, with low probability of positive outcome?