Looks like Garmin is sueing Uavionix

DaleB said:
Hasn't that been the Garmin model as well?
Click to expand...
Perhaps so. Back when I was in the software biz, the goal was to produce a moderately successful piece of software so that Microsoft would then buy out your company!
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Perhaps so. Back when I was in the software biz, the goal was to produce a moderately successful piece of software so that Microsoft would then buy out your company!
Click to expand...
Hey, it worked for a lot of people. Microsoft, then Google, others in between and since I'm sure.
 
Garmin has a "process" patent, and i despise process patents. Should do away with them. No new tech here.

I bet they settle, and we never hear the details.
 
GLMS_NC said:
Garmin has a "process" patent, and i despise process patents. Should do away with them. No new tech here.

I bet they settle, and we never hear the details.
Click to expand...

Bet they don't. They've asked for the most expensive way to do this, which means they intend to spend money and force UA to spend money too.
 
Ravioli said:
Perhaps a repeat, sorry, but:
"uAvionix Statement on Garmin Lawsuit
On June 19, 2018 Garmin International Inc. and Garmin USA Inc. sued uAvionix for patent infringement. Garmin alleges the uAvionix echoUAT and skyBeacon’s method of obtaining an installed transponder’s Mode 3/A code and altitude infringes their U.S. Patent No. 8,102,301 (“the 301 Patent”).

We do not infringe the 301 Patent. uAvionix has our own patent-pending method for using Mode 3/A and altitude information that differs from the method in the 301 Patent. We invite you to see for yourself.

Ultimately the court and industry will decide whether we are innovators or infringers.

We are disappointed and frustrated we have to go through the expense, distraction, and effort of defending ourselves, but also recognize that disruptive products often attract unwanted attention from incumbents.

We won’t be able to comment on the proceedings, and it will likely take some time to resolve. We just want the world to know that we take Intellectual Property rights seriously. We are innovators with integrity, and we are defending that integrity. As pilots, we will fight hard and stand our ground to deliver groundbreaking and innovative products to this market.

We also want to make a clear statement that this suit in no way impacts our ability to certify and ship any of our products – including skyBeacon and tailBeacon.

Thank you for your support and confidence.

The uAvionix Team

P.S. Our legal team deleted our usual levity from this statement."
Click to expand...
So, all the Garmin claims involve the ADS-B box having a receiver to get transmissions from the transponder. uAvionix claims (in addition to patenting navigation lights :) ) the detection of pulses on the power line. I ain't no patent lawyer, (just a dumb old engineer) but it looks to me like uAvionix has a pretty good method for getting around the Garmin claims assuming that they are using the methods claimed in their actual hardware.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So, all the Garmin claims involve the ADS-B box having a receiver to get transmissions from the transponder. uAvionix claims (in addition to patenting navigation lights ) the detection of pulses on the power line. I ain't no patent lawyer, (just a dumb old engineer) but it looks to me like uAvionix has a pretty good method for getting around the Garmin claims assuming that they are using the methods claimed in their actual hardware.
Click to expand...

Unless those pulses are just transmissions from the transponder (ie UA is using the wires as an antenna). This why you keep patents as general as possible, ie the process, not the specifics.
 
Axtel4 said:
Interesting view from the consumer side:
https://medium.com/@aldrinleal/goodbye-garmin-b14305c40442
Click to expand...

Go try and read/understand their chart packs/maps for their certified avionics. PilotPaks, OnePaks, pricing is crazy, and like this example, why make it so hard to spend money? Their avionics chart prices/packages are nuts and if they simplified & lowered they they would sell 2x more and make more money. But they don't care as folks have been complaining for years and nothing changes. Competition is a good thing, and we need others to keep them honest and offer alternatives.

I remain convinced this suit will get settled without a trial and won't drag out. No money may change hands but we'll never know without some insider leaking something.
 
I don't have a dog in this fight, but if somebody wants to do research on a newsgroup chat on "Tail Light" you will find that we were talking about a system publicly like this 10 years prior to the patent.

Who was that guy who got under the FAA's skin about the transponder sidelobe problem? He showed, unequivocally, that the only way to make a transponder work was to detune it slightly from optimum. Just remembered -- Keith Peshak. He has a company somewhere in Texas. Brilliant engineer.

He'd be one hell of a witness for the defense.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Unlike many others I'm jumping ship to get a GDL82 instead of a tailbeacon.

Reasons:
  • GDL82 is $1600 at some locations.
  • Tailbeacon is $2000
  • GDL82 comes with a GA35 antenna (normally costs ~$300, but is free with GDL82) which can be used for other avionics down the road
  • I have no doubts the GDL82 will function as advertised because it's a Garmin product.
  • I have no doubts there will be support for the GDL82 down the road.
  • I know it will play nice with my other Garmin products.
  • I can install both while being supervised by my A&P.
  • I don't like that I need to keep my NAV lights on at all times with the Tailbeacon... it's a perpetual reminder that I bought a band-aid of a solution.
  • I drink the Garmin Kool-Aid
(Flamesuit on)
 
Last edited:
Mtns2Skies said:
Unlike many others I'm jumping ship to get a GDL82 instead of a tailbeacon.
Click to expand...

That's the smart money.

I'm really unemotional about this stuff. I like Garmin because of what they give me across the board on the flight deck. Are they the cheapest, no. Are they the best - yeah. Is it overall the best long-term investment? Again, yeah, especially considering they have the GDL82 option now. (I went with the Ferrari version, the GTX345.) Am I a Garmin "fanboy?" Nope, I don't really care... their product suite just makes the most sense, by far.

For those who enjoy being part of a drama and throwing a little money in to the pot to gamble with, go right ahead. Have no idea why anyone would consider the Uavionix's untried and undeployed tail beacon product over the GDL82 given the minimal delta in price, but hey, knock yourselves out. :) Aviation is supposed to be fun, and that probably is legitimately fun to some people, even if they don't want to admit it.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Unlike many others I'm jumping ship to get a GDL82 instead of a tailbeacon.

Reasons:
  • GDL82 comes with a GA35 antenna (normally costs ~$300, but is free with GDL82) which can be used for other avionics down the road
Click to expand...
Make sure they install the freaking antenna in a place that makes sense.

Example: Some bloke mounted his GA35 for the GDL82 here. NFW is that adequate for a navigator so it should never be reused for that purpose in that location. IOW, now he will have to buy another one when he gets a new GPS navigator.

upload_2018-9-14_13-41-9.png
 
Last edited:
I'm likely going to buy the tailbeacon pretty soon. I like the ease of installation, and I've grown less fond of Garmin after this lawsuit.

There may be some risk with this relatively small company, but I'm fine with it. Heck, if I have to replace the thing in the next 10 years it wont matter to me much. By then, other manufacturers (like Dynon) will leapfrog whatever Garmin has. The trend seems to be toward cheaper and more abundant choices for avionics.
 
timwinters said:
What about installation costs?
Sure, they'll support it. They'll have a flat fee repair charge upwards of $1000.
Click to expand...
Well for either one I'm going to do the install and have it signed off by an A&P, so probably a negligible difference.

We both know you're exhaggerating with a $1000 support fee, but lets say it's $500. Waaay in the future when my GDL craps out on me and I need a new solution, I KNOW I'll have options. I can either repair it for ~$500 or I can get something new for 5000. With a tailbeacon I potentially run the risk of not having ANY choice in the matter when it craps out. What I've learned with my latest avionics upgrade is that the more options you give yourself for the future the better. So for 300 less, or 600 depending on how you see the GA35 fitting into all this, I get a superior product that is more "future proof"... So yeah I'm going to be getting the GDL82 and happily support our new overlords.

Also theft is significantly harder with the GDL vs the tailbeacon.
 
Ryan F. said:
That's the smart money.

I'm really unemotional about this stuff. I like Garmin because of what they give me across the board on the flight deck. Are they the cheapest, no. Are they the best - yeah. Is it overall the best long-term investment? Again, yeah, especially considering they have the GDL82 option now. (I went with the Ferrari version, the GTX345.) Am I a Garmin "fanboy?" Nope, I don't really care... their product suite just makes the most sense, by far.

For those who enjoy being part of a drama and throwing a little money in to the pot to gamble with, go right ahead. Have no idea why anyone would consider the Uavionix's untried and undeployed tail beacon product over the GDL82 given the minimal delta in price, but hey, knock yourselves out. :) Aviation is supposed to be fun, and that probably is legitimately fun to some people, even if they don't want to admit it.
Click to expand...

The lady doth protest too much.
 
asicer said:
Who would want to steal something that requires registering it's serial number with the FAA in order to use it?
Click to expand...
To resell it to someone that doesn't know it's been used before? Happens all the time with other types of avionics. I dont think thiefs know what high regard you all have for tailbeacons ;)
 
Mtns2Skies said:
To resell it to someone that doesn't know it's been used before? Happens all the time with other types of avionics. I dont think thiefs know what high regard you all have for tailbeacons ;)
Click to expand...
A thief that doesn't know that it's useless without registering also probably wouldn't know that it's more than just a light bulb. :)
 
timwinters said:
Now, THAT'S a good point.
Click to expand...

If your plane is somewhere that people are stealing bits off it, you got bigger troubles.


So from Garmin they want 1800 bucks and I don’t even get ADSB in?
F that
 
Last edited:
idahoflier said:
Great news, I think the skyBeacon and tailBeacon are great products! Will be interesting to see if the price increases...
Click to expand...
I doubt they will increase in price, at least not increase due to the settlement. If Garmin actually had a decent case, they would done everything they could to shut uAvionix down. The fact that uAvionix is still with us AND selling their products, says Garmin had no case.
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
Bet they don't. They've asked for the most expensive way to do this, which means they intend to spend money and force UA to spend money too.
Click to expand...

...and what just happened? No trial, suit is gone, and tail beacon is still for sale. Tells me Garmin lost.
 
GLMS_NC said:
...and what just happened? No trial, suit is gone, and tail beacon is still for sale. Tells me Garmin lost.
Click to expand...
The article says that the terms of the settlement have been kept confidential. For all we know, Uavionix may have agreed to pay royalties.
 
Palmpilot said:
The article says that the terms of the settlement have been kept confidential. For all we know, Uavionix may have agreed to pay royalties.
Click to expand...
Or, Uavionix found a big hole in the Garmin patent that Garmin does not want publicized.
Or there was an agreement to exchange technologies.
Or ...
 
GLMS_NC said:
...and what just happened? No trial, suit is gone, and tail beacon is still for sale. Tells me Garmin lost.
Click to expand...

No. It just tells us that both parties were intelligent enough to understand a mutually satisfactory negotiated solution is better than walking into the courthouse. In business disputes this is almost always the case.

We don't know what the settlement terms are, so nobody is in any position to objectively determine that one party or the other "lost".
 
GRG55 said:
No. It just tells us that both parties were intelligent enough to understand a mutually satisfactory negotiated solution is better than walking into the courthouse. In business disputes this is almost always the case.

We don't know what the settlement terms are, so nobody is in any position to objectively determine that one party or the other "lost".
Click to expand...

The patent in dispute is not a technology patent but a process patent, and those are though to prove. If it was a technology patent it would have gone down differently.
 
weirdjim said:
I don't have a dog in this fight, but if somebody wants to do research on a newsgroup chat on "Tail Light" you will find that we were talking about a system publicly like this 10 years prior to the patent.

Who was that guy who got under the FAA's skin about the transponder sidelobe problem? He showed, unequivocally, that the only way to make a transponder work was to detune it slightly from optimum. Just remembered -- Keith Peshak. He has a company somewhere in Texas. Brilliant engineer.

He'd be one hell of a witness for the defense.

Jim
Click to expand...

Thanks for remembering. I always get curious when I see my name, even if it’s old.

TailLight used the ICAO definition of a mode S transponder packet and added an unused downlink format number to broadcast position and velocity. Think of the transponder frequency (1090 MHz) like a shared two way radio. If the message isn’t “tone coded” for your receiver, you are not bothered by it. That way, TailLight is comparable with all other avionics (ATCRBS, TCAS, TCAD, ...) where ADS-B is not.

With TailLight, everybody can see your position and velocity, for at least 30 miles, everywhere on the planet (not limited to just near a ground station). Just not your name or address or social security number (how TailLight is different from ADS-B). TailLight also added some security that ADS-B doesn’t have - if somebody shoots a missile to guide to your position and velocity, it will explode harmlessly away from you. TailLight sees that as a critical requirement, ADS-B was designed specifically to allow any terrorist with access to Mouser.com (I used to say a Radio Shack store) to blow away a named target.

TailLight is in the Narco AT-155, just must be turned off in the United States.
 
TailLight said:
Thanks for remembering. I always get curious when I see my name, even if it’s old.

TailLight used the ICAO definition of a mode S transponder packet and added an unused downlink format number to broadcast position and velocity. Think of the transponder frequency (1090 MHz) like a shared two way radio. If the message isn’t “tone coded” for your receiver, you are not bothered by it. That way, TailLight is comparable with all other avionics (ATCRBS, TCAS, TCAD, ...) where ADS-B is not.

With TailLight, everybody can see your position and velocity, for at least 30 miles, everywhere on the planet (not limited to just near a ground station). Just not your name or address or social security number (how TailLight is different from ADS-B). TailLight also added some security that ADS-B doesn’t have - if somebody shoots a missile to guide to your position and velocity, it will explode harmlessly away from you. TailLight sees that as a critical requirement, ADS-B was designed specifically to allow any terrorist with access to Mouser.com (I used to say a Radio Shack store) to blow away a named target.

TailLight is in the Narco AT-155, just must be turned off in the United States.
Click to expand...
 
This thread is addressing a suit between A an B about how to receive altitude from a transponder reply to an interrogation (wouldn’t be there outside an ATCRBS “radar” environment) to put it in an ADS-B transmission. A bad idea anyway! When was the last time everybody flying had an accurate mode C data number? Not going to happen, ever! Yet another flaw in ADS-B.

Anyway, I always get a kick out of lawyers. When I was consulting for Trimble (the first multiple satellite in parallel GPS) some lawyer official in a big building in Houston threat lettered me about either we stop making the TNL2000 (and TNL3000 with also Loran, because there were not enough satellites) because he had patented our design which we were manufacturing. Patent troll...

Anyway, I consulted with another group that made the Airsport Pro. Same problem, how do you get the mode C altitude transponder reply data. The transponder coax leaks enough RF on its way to the antenna, that all you need for a receiver is a super low capacitance diode biased at the knee of the VI curve. You don’t even need an antenna (though we used one). You can listen to the DC power wiring. This is basic electrical engineering standard practice, NOT IN ANY WAY PATENTABLE.
 
TailLight said:
Thanks for remembering. I always get curious when I see my name, even if it’s old.

TailLight used the ICAO definition of a mode S transponder packet and added an unused downlink format number to broadcast position and velocity. Think of the transponder frequency (1090 MHz) like a shared two way radio. If the message isn’t “tone coded” for your receiver, you are not bothered by it. That way, TailLight is comparable with all other avionics (ATCRBS, TCAS, TCAD, ...) where ADS-B is not.

With TailLight, everybody can see your position and velocity, for at least 30 miles, everywhere on the planet (not limited to just near a ground station). Just not your name or address or social security number (how TailLight is different from ADS-B). TailLight also added some security that ADS-B doesn’t have - if somebody shoots a missile to guide to your position and velocity, it will explode harmlessly away from you. TailLight sees that as a critical requirement, ADS-B was designed specifically to allow any terrorist with access to Mouser.com (I used to say a Radio Shack store) to blow away a named target.

TailLight is in the Narco AT-155, just must be turned off in the United States.
Click to expand...
Jim isn't on this board anymore, so he won't see your reply to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top