Lets save Runwayfinder.com

KSCessnaDriver said:
Yup, I've read things on this one. If RunwayFinder was using these software methods first, why didn't they copyright it? Sure, the situation sucks, but the law is the law.
Click to expand...

Sure it may be unethical and deplorable but the law is the law! Doop dee doop. How's the air up there?
 
youngflyer said:
I dont understand this. Does everyone not believe in patent law? Flightprep has the patent, Runwayfinder does not. It does not matter who created the technology first if it was not patented. If people totally disregard patent law, what would be the incentive for inventors to create new technology?
Click to expand...

It's not that no one likes patent laws, it the premise on which the law was done. Flightpreps patent was rejected numerous times, and runwayfinder was a FREE service. Also, runwayfinder was on the scene first, and flightprep basically took a free service and turned it into a pay to play service. The little guy got railroaded in this instance. Someone stole this guys invention and then patented it.

It's more about doing what is right, than what is legal to me. Thats why I want to help this guy out.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Yup, I've read things on this one. If RunwayFinder was using these software methods first, why didn't they copyright it? Sure, the situation sucks, but the law is the law.
Click to expand...

He didn't copyright it because he wanted to keep the service free. Is that wrong of him for trying to help people out?
 
mshunter said:
It's not that no one likes patent laws, it the premise on which the law was done. Flightpreps patent was rejected numerous times, and runwayfinder was a FREE service. Also, runwayfinder was on the scene first, and flightprep basically took a free service and turned it into a pay to play service. The little guy got railroaded in this instance. Someone stole this guys invention and then patented it.

It's more about doing what is right, than what is legal to me. Thats why I want to help this guy out.
Click to expand...

That's kind of what happened with the "Snuggie". Someone created the original, then an established companies more or less hijacks the product, renames it to "Snuggie" and took the money and run.

mshunter said:
He didn't copyright it because he wanted to keep the service free. Is that wrong of him for trying to help people out?
Click to expand...

Maybe an intellectual property attorney might be of use. I know one in ATL but I'm not sure where the webmaster is based.
 
mshunter said:
He didn't copyright it because he wanted to keep the service free. Is that wrong of him for trying to help people out?
Click to expand...

Not at all. But, anyone with a brain could realize that if it wasn't patent/copyright the thing, someone else would. Call me whatever you wish, but someone went through the process of getting the patent, and was awarded one. Just because somebody doesn't like a law/patent or whatever, doesn't mean its right to just ignore it. 2 wrong's don't make a right.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Not at all. But, anyone with a brain could realize that if it wasn't patent/copyright the thing, someone else would. Call me whatever you wish, but someone went through the process of getting the patent, and was awarded one. Just because somebody doesn't like a law/patent or whatever, doesn't mean its right to just ignore it. 2 wrong's don't make a right.
Click to expand...

Who did wrong? Not runwayfinder. His product was something you could find on your own, just with more legowrk. Now someone wants to charge for the leg work. He hurt no one. Someone took his idea and is now charging for it, and a great service is now gone because of it.

And I'm not calling you anything.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
No, I won't pay. They infringed on copyright, and as such should deal with the consequences. As much as I don't like that people can copyright software methods, until that is illegal, I can't support circumventing copyrights.

Honestly, the owner of the website will be lucky if he can just walk away and not get stuck paying for all the potential lost revenue he caused.
Click to expand...

<redacted> This was a patent, not a copyright AND it was issued just one year ago even though it was applied for eight years ago.
Runwayfinder did not infringe on anything when he started, he just got a letter telling him that he was now infinging on patent rights based on the patent that had just been issued. Stupid. Bunch of greedy pricks that convinced someone at the patent office to let them patent an idea, namely "online flight planning". The patent does not cover any software method, just the concept of online flight planning. I will pay double elsewhere before I use that pricks service for 149.00 a year.
Curtis
 
mshunter said:
Who did wrong? Not runwayfinder. His product was something you could find on your own, just with more legowrk. Now someone wants to charge for the leg work. He hurt no one. Someone took his idea and is now charging for it, and a great service is now gone because of it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand that. But if you really want to protect your intellectual property, with the current patent environment, you really need to patent it, or someone else will. At that point, its going to get expensive in a hurry to fight in court. Don't get me wrong, this isn't really something that should have happened, but with the way the laws are written on patents, it was probably inevitable. Sucks that it had to happen, but such is life.
 
Doug Taylor said:
That's kind of what happened with the "Snuggie". Someone created the original, then an established companies more or less hijacks the product, renames it to "Snuggie" and took the money and run.



Maybe an intellectual property attorney might be of use. I know one in ATL but I'm not sure where the webmaster is based.
Click to expand...


Wait, so you're saying the Snuggie really was the WTFblanket? ;)
 
I hope they go after Jeppesen. They've got the money to go to court and get the patent invalidated.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
No, I won't pay. They infringed on copyright, and as such should deal with the consequences. As much as I don't like that people can copyright software methods, until that is illegal, I can't support circumventing copyrights.

Honestly, the owner of the website will be lucky if he can just walk away and not get stuck paying for all the potential lost revenue he caused.
Click to expand...

Until everything falls out, this sounds like another instance of a company filing a patent after the fact, then suing everyone who "infringes" on it who had been around beforehand, on the false pretense that they're losing business to these sites.

A more effective means of protest would just be to refuse to do business with this company. I personally think it is a VERY sleazy practice.
 
Well, if everyone puts their money where their mouth is and doesn't use their service, the "YAAAAAAAR!! AMMUH SOOOOO!" webmaster gets emasculated. Pretty simple! :)

Powah to da people, yo.
 
mshunter said:
That all depends on how greedy they and the attourney gets.
Click to expand...

Patent litigation is rarely attorney-driven. Tends to be very expensive for both sides and is usually a strategic or tactical business decision by the company initiating it.

I have no opinion on either the validity or the breadth of the FlightPrep patent. But going after small players like RunwayFinder that proably can't afford to fight back while leaving the players like Jepp that can make it more costly for the patent holder and possible take them out, is an understandable tactic.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I have no opinion on either the validity or the breadth of the FlightPrep patent.
Click to expand...

You would if you would read it.

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=d-3UAAAAEBAJ&dq=7640098

KSCessnaDriver said:
Yeah, I understand that. But if you really want to protect your intellectual property, with the current patent environment, you really need to patent it, or someone else will. At that point, its going to get expensive in a hurry to fight in court. Don't get me wrong, this isn't really something that should have happened, but with the way the laws are written on patents, it was probably inevitable. Sucks that it had to happen, but such is life.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't have happened. It's not fair. But ah, such is life. Everyone should just roll over and accept whats coming to them when some company out-sleazes them. I still don't understand your justification of this practice.
 
There seem to be two very different stories coming from either side. Flightprep said in this (Interview) yesterday that they tried contacting Runwayfinder and didn't get any response. But Runwayfinder guy said in his blog that he was never contacted. RunwayFinder hasn't issued anymore updates.....as some have said, he's losing the battle here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top