The offices at FlightPrep, an Oregon company that received a patent for its online flight planning software, have been inundated in the last few days with calls and e-mails from concerned GA pilots who are angry that one of their favorite websites, RunwayFinder.com, has been shut down because FlightPrep is trying to enforce its patent.
Shutting the website down is not what the folks at FlightPrep want to do. They also didn’t want to file a lawsuit against RunwayFinder.com and its developer, Dave Parsons. But after phones calls and registered letters failed to get any response, a lawsuit was the next step. “How else can you get someone’s attention?” asked Ross Neher, FlightPrep’s general manager and vice president.
Despite FlightPrep’s offer to provide RunwayFinder a free license during negotiations for “a constructive resolution to our dispute,” RunwayFinder.com was shut down late Monday evening, with Parsons blogging that: “I was hoping to be able to work out an agreement with FlightPrep where the lawsuit against RunwayFinder would be withdrawn and the website could stay online in return for some free advertising and removal of this entire blog post. FlightPrep has instead decided to keep the lawsuit active, so unfortunately RunwayFinder must be shut down. FlightPrep has posted some sort of temporary license on their website instead of contacting me directly, but unfortunately does not provide relief from their claimed damages. From FlightPrep’s attorney’s letter of Dec. 9: “While we appreciate your offer to shut down the website to stop future infringement, we notice that your website is still operation. And without further information from you, our only means to assess the potential damages is the observation that your website had 22,256 unique visitors in July 2010. Each visit represents a potential lost sale of our client’s patented invention at $149 per sale. This damage calculation exceeds $3.2 million per month in lost revenue.” Shutting down RunwayFinder is not an admission of infringement or validity of the FlightPrep patent, Parson’s blog concludes.
Parsons did not respond to e-mailed questions before press time Tuesday.
FlightPrep officials didn’t want to try its case in the court of public opinion, but find themselves doing just, according to Neher. In a release sent out Tuesday, FlightPrep officials say: “Mr. Parson’s 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.”
The controversy has gotten a lot of attention on pilot forums and blogs, with many calling FlightPrep greedy, likening the fight to David vs. Goliath. “People see this as the big guy vs. the little guy, but we’re not a big company,” Neher said. “Having to file a lawsuit is not something that I wanted my small business to have to do.”
This is the only lawsuit FlightPrep has filed in regards to the patent, Neher said, noting that an agreement was easily reached with its first licensee, SkyVector. Other agreements are in negotiations, Neher said.
In Tuesday’s news release, FlightPrep officials concede that “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.”
FlightPrep is currently in negotiations with other companies to license its flight planning software and are still amenable to working out something with RunwayFinder. “We do not want to shut anybody down,” Neher said. “We want this to be a tool.”
In fact, Neher praised RunwayFinder.com and its beta site. “We want him to continue working on his beta site,” he said. “It’s a really neat site.”
Neher said the two companies could reach a “viable agreement,” noting that a “viable agreement” doesn’t necessarily include Parsons paying to license the patented flight planning software. “We are agreeable to discussing ways to license our technology that won’t cost his business anything,” Neher said, noting it could be something along the lines of sponsorship or marketing. “There are other possibilities besides financial.”
For more information: FlightPrep.com, RunwayFinder.com
Please visit and “Like” “Disgusted with FlightPrep” on Facebook.com
I can’t imagine that FlightPrep would even consider attending Sun ‘n Fun this year. I’ll bet it’s a year they’ll never forget, if they show!
I’ll never purchase a FlightPrep product, and am looking-forward to their undoing.
Hope NavMonster.com gets back up-and-running. They were the best!
You’ve got my support! I know what is involved in coming up with software to solve new problems much less what goes into getting a patent issued. The USPTO determines if an application warrents a patent so after all the research that goes into it, (usually 4 years) I have to believe they have done due diligence.
Stick to your guns. Intellectual Property is hard to safeguard. Hard work went into it’s development. Let the naysayers work for free for the same amount of time so they can get it into perspective.
It’s real property and as such should be protected against thieves.
Just to add as a second thought, in the end FlightPrep might end up villified, but like Microsoft and apple, they may still exist after taking down several of their competitors. I have to admit, before the law suit, I had no idea they existed. The bad or misbehaven guys don’t alway loose dispite what my fairy tales told me.
Karl
It looks like FlightPrep is exploting a loop hole in the patent process, kind of reminds me of the story of Bill Gates working with other programmers to develope the foundation of an operating system. Then one day he comes in and said, I’ve patent the OS so none of you can work with it anymore, which was the basis for Microsoft. I don’t know how much truth there is in that story, but this sound like it. In the world of software, several software application can perform the same tasks like 1. Apple and Windows OS, 2. Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat Reader, or 3. Internet Explorer and Real Player browsers. I don’t know how exectly the law will work for them, but unless someone took Flight Preps software and build on top of it, eventually it’s going to be hard to defend. It seems hard to just own a concept for long in the software world.
Does anyone know if this will affect Jeppesen Flight Star which gets data updates over the internet, but is not completely internet driven. How about Garmin 696 downloads and it XM datalink? After reading the articles, I’m still not sure if they are affected.
Karl
I was a customer of flightprep for years, but no more. Once I had called flightprep for tech support (a quick question regarding map orientation) and was surprised to be BILLED for their time! Greedy!
General aviation needs to work together during this time of uncertainty not have expensive infighting. Innovation is sacrificed for greed and lawyers win while everyone else looses. This country has become so over litigious that science, aviation, medicine, health insurance and so many other fields have been affected. I’m disappointed in flightprep.
If you are a member of AOPA and you believe YOUR organization should be protecting GA safety by helping to defend runwayfinder, navmonster (also a casualty of this Bravo Sierra), and other flight-planning websites that enhance GA safety please email and call them with your complaint. I’m canceling my auto-renew to AOPA and will not renew if they continue to show no spine on this issue. So far they’re saying that it doesn’t affect their flight-planning software, so they appear to be ignoring the issue. I don’t pay dues to AOPA for them to ignore issues involving G.A. safety.
Mike Hagans
Disappointed in AOPA and disgusted with FlightPrep
This is un believable. As GA teeters on cliff of uncertainty (fuel, overall cost, national security, user fees, etc), who in their right mind, that has any interest in GA, would alienate purposely anyone else in the GA community? This is over a virtual line…really? In the long run, the parties responsible will suffer at the poll of public opinion and it will impact their ledger. And, as others have already commented, even at no cost, their product is sub standard.
GA doesn’t forget. Because of the Meigs closure I wont even schedule a commercial connection through Chicago, much less visit…you can bet I wont use flight prep.
The arrogance of companies like FlightPrep and their bully lawyers makes me hopping mad. Non-disclosure agreement? “Here… put this duct tape over your mouth and keep your trap shut while we screw you and your little company”. They don’t want this tried “in the court of public opinion”? Give me a break. Thank you, Dave, for not caving to this despicable kind of threat and letting us all know the TRUTH.
I will never, NEVER ever allow one thin dime of my money to line their pockets. SkyVector caved to the bully rather than spend money and fight for what’s right. I’m new to aviation and never used RunwayFinder before, but I’m ready now to support Dave any way I can.
The patent isnt legit, people in general are angry. They say “how else were we supposed to get their attention?”-Well, you could give Dave a call, leave a non-threatening, and clear, vague-less, comprehensive message as to what exactly the company was trying to do-which is to say, extort money from Dave and eliminate healthy competition. These guys are scumbags. flightprep should drop the lawsuit and try to regain their dignity and professionalism as a company. If they keep playing 5 year old and suing someone who obviously has no money, and is not a threat to their company, they will end up losing their customer base, losing what little profit they had, and a lot of people remembering who these guys are and what company they worked for when they try to get another job. The company will fail as a whole, lose the lawsuit, and anger enough people in this small aviation community badly enough so that they will never work again. My hats off to flightprep. If your end-game is to lose all around and live in a refrigerator box, actually thinking along the deluded lines of Al Gore that you invented the internet, then thank you for playing-you won. What delusional morons…
It may be legal, but as far as I’m concerned Flightprep is committing extortion. The patent office should not award a patent such as this, but they did. The patent process needs to be changed. This is not helping innovation, it’s destroying all versions of flight planning access, forcing pilots to go without or give in to Flightprep’s large monthly payment. Why do they think that if I visit Runwayfinder’s site that I would be willing to give Flightprep $149 per month? I won’t use anything connected with them and will tell everyone about this. Flightprep doesn’t want this out in the open to be reviewed by public opinion, they’d rather manipulate each company secretly. Well, the public is the customer and we have the right to know and discuss what is going on.
This looks like case where a pilot class action lawsuit should be filed against FlightPrep. I was using a compter-based flight planner in 1990 that filed my flight plans I believe long before every seeing FlightPrep. FlightPrep will now be removed from my computer since I lost access to charts, IAPs and the like from Narcomatic!
I am not sure that their patent is legit!
How much did FlightPrep pay GAN for this propaganda? They tell ONE side of the story, mostly cutting and pasting from the FlightPrep blog and call it news? You blew it on this one, guys.
Flightpreps original patent application in 2001 did not result in the patent award, their subsequent application in September 2005 did, that’s why the original failed 2001 application is listed as ‘related’ in the patent itself.
Based on the simple principle that the so called ‘invention’ was protected from date of the successful application in September 2005, the fact that runwayfinder.com launched in JUNE 2005 would give basis for Dave Parsons to fight the lawsuit if he chose to, but lawyers are expensive…
FlightPrep is well within their right to defend their patent. I’m well within my rights to vote with my pocketbook – and will NEVER purchase a FlightPrep product.
The consolation I find (speaking as an engineer who deals with patent issues all the time) is that patents such as US 7,640,098 are easily worked around. And the open source user community will likely find compliant alternate implementation.
FlighPrep has made a bad business decision and permanently tarnished thier reputation.
Having told FlightPrep in writing that I will never purchase any product of theirs, and that I will bring to light their heavy handed practice with every other pilot I come in contact with, I also have decided that when I see ANY vendor supporting FlightPrep’s products, I will excercize my own market power and advise that vendor that I will no longer purchase anything from them either as long as they are doing business with FlightPrep. Thats the way it works. I urge every other pilot who comes to the same conclusion as I did to excercize the same market power. When their pocket book hurts and they continue to roll up bad press they will do the right thing if they are interested in remaining in business themselves.
The patent # is on the bottom of skyvector’s page.
This may be the awakening of the sleeping giant. This patent is BS and further proof that the USPTO needs to be overhauled to keep stuff done on a whim and theory before any real art is exhibited, out of the system.
This will be interesting too, to see which “side” AOPA and the other organizations take, the money side or the innovative side.
Accepting that ‘free license’ would have had to be some form of admitting guilt, too. Otherwise, you wouldn’t need to license it, would you? Yes, I would rather take it down and figure out a way to fight it, than to give in.
I’ve decided to pay $149 a year to Runway Finder for as long as they are willing to fight FlightPrep. I loved being able to check out the entire length of Puget Sound in a second, then if it looked good go to Duats. FlightPrep didn’t and won’t get anything from me.
What is the patent number that is being enforced?
To what entity is the patent assigned?
What are the claims that Flightprep suggests are infringed?
This patent is ridiculous! It’s like patenting addition or subtraction. If this patented process was applied to car navigation then GoogleMaps and MapQuest couldn’t exist. One would become a monopoly, which is clearly FlightPrep’s plans. I will never buy any of their products and I will spread the world to all pilots I know never to support this evil company and their bloodsucking lawyers. The aviation community is not that big and this move on their part will backfire big time.
Patents are supposed to encourage innovation. All this one has done is stifle innovation and leave users with the inferior FlightPrep product.
Patents are retroactively effective to the filing date. They filed in 2001. RunwayFinder was established in July, 2005.
The FlightPrep patent doesn’t cover general purpose flight planning. It specifically covers a planner that runs on a server but displays on a web browser; that involves an incrementally scrolling map (which was new technology for the web in 2001) and that overlays course lines and weather on the map. And while focused on flight planners, it’s not actually limited to that. It seems they could have a case against Google Maps, for example, if they wanted to.
I don’t like software patents and they are often ill-granted and used to extort money from competitors. But the fact that SkyVector agreed to buy a license tells me that in this case with RunwayFinder we probably have more of a personality conflict than an extortion conflict. SkyVector doesn’t seem to be set up to be pulling in a lot of money for its owner I doubt the license was overly expensive.
All that being said, I don’t disagree that FlightPrep (like many others) is abusing the patent system. The patent was rejected several times and this last go-round was submitted in September, 2005–indeed after RunwayFinder was online. I don’t understand what they did with “divisional patents” to get the process back-dated to 2001.
Flight planning has been around for ages – well before the advent of computers. Making the claim and filing a patent eluding that electronic flight planning is unique and intellectual property is absurd.
In this authors humble opinion, Flightpreps product falls short of even being an entry level flight planning system. There are much better products available which include geo-referenced moving maps, etc. I highly recommend pilots boycott Flightprep products.
Not happy about Flightprep has done to runwayfinder. The logic that they think that just because I use runwayfinder translates directly to a loss of $149 is just plain stupid. I guarantee that I will never send money to Flightprep. from what I have read, Flightpreps patent came after runwayfinder started. Therefore, flightprep does not have origianl product.
@J. Landers – runwayfinder was online before FlightPrep had applied for their patent.
FlightPrep doesn’t get it and is digging their hole deeper. They patented 10 year old technology. RunwayFinder, like AOPA’s flight planner, uses completely different methods. FlightPrep is indeed being a bully because they are trying to claim a more general ownership of online flight planning. RunwayFinder, Flyagogo, and SkyVector for example can’t afford to fight this even though they would easily win. AOPA and Jepp have basically told FlightPrep to go away.
FlightPrep has one remote way to salvage their reputation. Stop trying to rationalize and defend their bad behaviour, maybe hang their patent on the wall but forget about it otherwise, and write an open letter of apology that includes an admission that they were wrong to try and claim ownership of general online flight planning, and admit they didn’t invent anything here. They took an existing process and put it online, using the same techniques any web server does to solve any business application. That’s not an invention.
FlightPrep talks about agreements that don’t involve money. So, they just want everyone to bow down to them and thank them with sponsorship and marketing as the great inventors of online travel planning. Give me a break!
Janice….You got your facts wrong. Runwayfinder was not using Flight Prep’s software. You obviously didn’t read what the patent was for. Very poor journalism on your part. No one would dispute Flight Prep’s claim to a patent infringement on their software but what they patented was a process whereby you can draw a line over a chart for a simplistic graphic on the web. They somehow convinced the patent office to give them a patent for a simple idea that is overly obvious to anyone.
@ Landers: The law also says that you cannot patent software; a software patent must be tied to a specific machine (not a general-purpose computer), which is to say that the software and machine must be integral. The patent in question refers repeatedly to software running on a ‘server’ (i.e., a general-purpose computer). And that’s before we even get to issues of prior art and obviousness.
This is a case of someone abusing the patent system, bullying others who cannot afford to seek justice with a patent that isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
This is a clear illustration of what’s wrong with the Patent System.
I note with interest that FlightPrep is not picking on anyone big enough to stomp on them while pursuing counter-claims of frivolous litigation…
So your enforcing your patent. That’s your right.
And mine is to vote with my pocket book. That’s my right.
Litigation vs. innovation.
I vote for innovation. I hope others do too…
Indeed pretty simple – Runwayfinder was great and now it is gone, thanks to flightprep.
The guy who has the money beats the one with no money because he asks for… well, money! Well done guys.
Another disservice to GA justified by lawyers.
FP also attached Narcomatic who published free charts.
Narcomatic is now off the net too, so 2 of 3 are gone, and one, skyvector, has been taken hostage by the lawfirm
Seems a bit of a greedy, draconian attitude on the part of this little legal firm, all respect to patent law withstanding. Their patent is on methods that were pretty common in ’01. I don’t even remember seeing them ‘on line’ then, but that is all secondary to the way the USPTO may have been duped to award the patent.
Wonder if Jepp, ForeFlight, Winx, AOPA, fltplanner and others will soon be extinct due to alleged patent infringement.
Glad I haven’t gone to paperless, and for their price of $149, if they are the only ‘choice’, I guess I will stay with paper.
Sounds pretty simple. Law says all you have to do is obtain a license. Do that, and buyers will select the product they like best. This patent system has been around for a long time. It protects people from unfair use of someone else’s intellectual property. FlightPrep isn’t a giant trying to squash the little guy, they are in fact, the little, trying to protect what’s theirs.
Flight Prep may have thought to patent the idea of online flight planning. However, they have failed to produce a flight planning product up to the quality of most of their competitors. Their own implementation of the idea is in an inelegant, arcane, graphically displeasing and visually confusing website that I, for one wouldn’t pay to use under any circumstances.
That’s the real problem with their bullying of their competitors. In the court of public opinion, this is a lose-lose situation for Flight Prep.