Todos
← Back to Squawk list
When Bad Patents Hurt Good People: Patent Threat Shuts Down Flight Planning Site
The Electronic Frontier Foundation published an article on the Flightprep patent abuses. The EFF runs a [https://w2.eff.org/patent/wp.php patent busting project] where they fund legal defenses against bogus patents. Huge organization with tons of cash...you do not want these guys against you. (www.eff.org) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
murrelp asked
"How many of these bitchers are actually REAL Pilots, not sims pilots, or puter putter arounders ?
The several pilots I know don't use computer freebees in their flight planing."
Perhaps you don't know many pilots. Visit a pilot forum and see the discussions if you are really curious. Or, head over to an FBO that has a flight planning room that has an internet computer instead of or even in addition to a WSI terminal.
What you would find is that most pilots (agi with the exception of air carriers) use free flight planning services of one type or another. The official source of pilot weather briefings is via telephone or online DUAT services (both free). The tool of choice for a high percentage of corporate pilots and a decent percentage of Part 135 pilots is Fltplan.com.
btw, I'm a pilot an CFI and while I do have a pay-for flight planning program, I use free online services extensively.
"How many of these bitchers are actually REAL Pilots, not sims pilots, or puter putter arounders ?
The several pilots I know don't use computer freebees in their flight planing."
Perhaps you don't know many pilots. Visit a pilot forum and see the discussions if you are really curious. Or, head over to an FBO that has a flight planning room that has an internet computer instead of or even in addition to a WSI terminal.
What you would find is that most pilots (agi with the exception of air carriers) use free flight planning services of one type or another. The official source of pilot weather briefings is via telephone or online DUAT services (both free). The tool of choice for a high percentage of corporate pilots and a decent percentage of Part 135 pilots is Fltplan.com.
btw, I'm a pilot an CFI and while I do have a pay-for flight planning program, I use free online services extensively.
This is the letter I have written to my Congressman:
I am a private pilot who makes use of digital navigation charts (AeroNav Products) published by the FAA and provided for download over the Internet. Several web sites have made use of the charts to provide services using the charts; for example locating airport on the charts and providing airport information, but also flight planning.
Last summer, a patent #7,640,098 was issued to StenBock & Everson, a company in Aurora, OR which claims a patent on composing maps from multiple maps and displaying portions of a map or a composition of maps within a browser from over the Internet. It is of some interest to me that this patent makes the display of government maps or composition of such maps the exclusive province of Stenbock and Everson.
My own opinion is that Business Methods patents, particularly software patents, are a impediment to innovation and should be eliminated. I would like for you to investigate the issue of software patents with an eye to their elimination.
However, that is a broader request than I have in mind with the letter. I would like to know how it is possible that the USPTO can grant a process patent, the effect of which is to grant the sole power to provide web-based use of government published charts which are in the public domain to a single company? The product which Stenbock and Everson have protected ("FlightPrep") would have absolutely no value if it were not for the public domain charts they download from the FAA and to which they have restricted web access, by patent.
I am a private pilot who makes use of digital navigation charts (AeroNav Products) published by the FAA and provided for download over the Internet. Several web sites have made use of the charts to provide services using the charts; for example locating airport on the charts and providing airport information, but also flight planning.
Last summer, a patent #7,640,098 was issued to StenBock & Everson, a company in Aurora, OR which claims a patent on composing maps from multiple maps and displaying portions of a map or a composition of maps within a browser from over the Internet. It is of some interest to me that this patent makes the display of government maps or composition of such maps the exclusive province of Stenbock and Everson.
My own opinion is that Business Methods patents, particularly software patents, are a impediment to innovation and should be eliminated. I would like for you to investigate the issue of software patents with an eye to their elimination.
However, that is a broader request than I have in mind with the letter. I would like to know how it is possible that the USPTO can grant a process patent, the effect of which is to grant the sole power to provide web-based use of government published charts which are in the public domain to a single company? The product which Stenbock and Everson have protected ("FlightPrep") would have absolutely no value if it were not for the public domain charts they download from the FAA and to which they have restricted web access, by patent.
The problem I have is that they are pulling government geo/aviation maps that we as tax payers already pay for. These charts have been available since the early days of digital technology.
I know there is still a group that will be boycotting their booth (and sponsors)at SunFun.
I know there is still a group that will be boycotting their booth (and sponsors)at SunFun.
Another thing I would like to point out about web-server based programming is that the code used to implement the application is secret. It resides on the server which, if properly protected, will not be available for someone else to steal. That "runwayfinder" implemented its own flight planning solution speaks to the obvious nature of the solution.
Scanning (not perusing) the claims, it appears S&E have patented the process used by google maps or any other over the road "drive planners"; composition of maps from a plurality of sources, overlay of a course line, addition of VOR, waypoints, etc. For a patent to be issued, it must be novel, non-obvious and useful. Non-obvious doesn't mean to be confusing to Old Aunt Milly, but non-obvious to a practioner of the art. I was composing disparate NexRad charts for a product idea in the late 90's (didn't go anywhere) and can tell you this is old hat for GIS programmers. The only thing new in the patent, IMHO, is the claim to do this over the Internet instead from a maps repository over a local network. Whoop-dee-doo!
PS: Also an owner-pilot
PS: Also an owner-pilot
@Rivetdriver: Good comment, as I said I don't have a full understanding of the complaint. I have read the patent (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7640098.PN.&OS=PN/7640098&RS=PN/7640098) and I also read this blog "Myth vs Fact regarding the Flightprep Patent"(http://blog.flightprep.com/2010/12/myth-vs-fact-regarding-flightprep.html). Based on the extensive prior art sited on the patent, it would appear as if the patent office considered a lot of prior art and in turn deemed the Flight Prep invention as "novel and unique" over known prior art. If Flight Prep's patent is not "worthy", then it will be very easy to site other prior art and defeat this. Also, if it's not "worthy" then why would these other guys copy it? Flight Prep is a small, 4 employee business. I think they deserve the right to protect their intellectual property. Unfortunately, due to other people copying the idea, the courts will have to decide if it's valid.
I have signed the petition at http://www.BoycottFlightPrep.com, I hope you will too.