Runwayfinder.com back up.

J

Jim Logajan

En-Route
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
4,024
Display Name
Display name:
.
Quoted from their web site:
"RunwayFinder is back on the air! Thanks to your overwhelming support and some great communication sat down with FlightPrep and FlightPrep agreed to dismiss the lawsuit! The exact details of the settlement license are convidential. RunwayFinder doees not ask for or support any further boycott of FlightPrep, its services, products, or owners. This is a big win for RunwayFinder and the pilots who depend on its services! We're back and lawsuit free, come check out www.runwayfidner.com. Again, thanks you for all of your support."
http://runwayfinder.com/

The announcement must have been composed rather hastily - they even managed to spell their own URL wrong.
 
Hmmm. After going there and seeing "Portions licensed by FlightPrep™ U.S. Patent number 7,640,098" I still don't exactly have a warm and fuzzy feeling. :no:
 
Colour me shocked...they sat down, talked under an NDA to ensure confidentiality of their discussions, and voila, came to an agreement.

The whole mess could have been avoided by doing this when FP first asked to talk...
 
JeffDG said:
Colour me shocked...they sat down, talked under an NDA to ensure confidentiality of their discussions, and voila, came to an agreement.

The whole mess could have been avoided by doing this when FP first asked to talk...
Click to expand...
Why didn't RF and FP just do that in the first place?
 
I do not see it back on AirNav. I hope that they start using Runwayfinder again.
 
ScottM said:
Why didn't RF and FP just do that in the first place?
Click to expand...
Letters from lawyers often appear threatening causing the recipient to hunker down and prepare for expensive legal combat.
 
Gary F said:
Letters from lawyers often appear threatening causing the recipient to hunker down and prepare for expensive legal combat.
Click to expand...

Yet it caused no outage on sites like SkyVector...

The problem was, RF ignored the letters from the lawyers rather than responding and talking, causing FP to take the next step of filing a suit.
 
I'm glad to see the site back online, but I don't like the "Portions licensed by FlightPrep™ U.S. Patent number 7,640,098." bit. FP got exactly what they wanted - validity to their bogus patent.

I don't think we've seen the last of FP - standby for them targeting Jepp other 'big dog' companies once they have a few of the freelance developers in their pocket to use as "See - they are using our patent, so our patent MUST be valid, so pay up!" fodder.

Still... I'm glad RF was able to work out something without causing too much hardship to his personal finances/situation.
 
JeffDG said:
Yet it caused no outage on sites like SkyVector...

The problem was, RF ignored the letters from the lawyers rather than responding and talking, causing FP to take the next step of filing a suit.
Click to expand...
I suspect that you have a better understanding of the legal system.
 
CJones said:
Still... I'm glad RF was able to work out something without causing too much hardship to his personal finances/situation.
Click to expand...

Did RF have ads before? None there now...wonder if he had to foreswear any income from the site to get a free license...

Never know...NDA...
 
CJones said:
I'm glad to see the site back online, but I don't like the "Portions licensed by FlightPrep™ U.S. Patent number 7,640,098." bit. FP got exactly what they wanted - validity to their bogus patent.
Click to expand...
The patent is looking less and less bogus all the time.

CJones said:
I don't think we've seen the last of FP - standby for them targeting Jepp other 'big dog' companies once they have a few of the freelance developers in their pocket to use as "See - they are using our patent, so our patent MUST be valid, so pay up!" fodder.
Click to expand...
Probably, maybe, sure.

CJones said:
Still... I'm glad RF was able to work out something without causing too much hardship to his personal finances/situation.
Click to expand...
Me too, without knowing the details of the license my GUESS is that RF is getting to use the patent fee free until they make over a certain amount of income and then a percentage royalty would be paid.
 
ScottM said:
The patent is looking less and less bogus all the time.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't assume that.

FP's original claim for damages was based on the number of hits per month on RF times FP subscription rate. Visions of sugarplums...

Once RF went down, RF could claim the damages could be no more than the increase in FP subscriptions. Since that number was likely very small, bye bye get rich quick. Why spend tens of thousands to recover hundreds in "damages"? Just give it up.
 
I don't like the means to the ends. I won't be using runwayfinder as long as flightprep is involved. Hmmmm, anyone want to do the programming for me to make our own PoA version? I'll host.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I wouldn't assume that.

FP's original claim for damages was based on the number of hits per month on RF times FP subscription rate. Visions of sugarplums...

Once RF went down, RF could claim the damages could be no more than the increase in FP subscriptions. Since that number was likely very small, bye bye get rich quick. Why spend tens of thousands to recover hundreds in "damages"? Just give it up.
Click to expand...
None of that has anything to do with the validity of the patent claims which are still untested and officially uncontested.
 
This.. is incredible.

Is there an ipad app that lets you pre-download the entire vfr chart and view it pinch-zoom style? I mean a SIMPLE app. Zero options (except maybe brightness) - that would be really cool.


edit: yes, I've been living under a rock
 
EstorilM said:
This.. is incredible.

Is there an ipad app that lets you pre-download the entire vfr chart and view it pinch-zoom style? I mean a SIMPLE app. Zero options (except maybe brightness) - that would be really cool.


edit: yes, I've been living under a rock
Click to expand...

You can download the charts, for free, from NACO, or whatever they call themselves now...they're even geo-referenced.
 
******mit Dave. Now it looks like he extorted money from the public for no reason, rather than actually fighting FlightPrep's bogus patent.

Now, the patent gains strength, and Dave made some money off of some suckers.

Good on him, I guess.
 
ScottM said:
None of that has anything to do with the validity of the patent claims which are still untested and officially uncontested.
Click to expand...

You are right. A now slightly richer Dave has essentially lent credibility to a patent that would have likely fallen under legal pressure.

I guess AOPA should be worried now?
 
I think I sent him a hundo. I'd think I'd like it back now.
 
JeffDG said:
The whole mess could have been avoided by doing this when FP first asked to talk...
Click to expand...
Get a clue. The credible threat to destroy is how FlightPrep does business. If they only threatened quetly, the next victim might be less agreeable. Now they know that FlightPrep will keep them down unless they pay. This is why they took RunwayFinder off the air first, to soften them up.
-- Pete
P.S. Just as in case with Microsoft FAT patents and Tom Tom, it's a little disappointing that RunwayFinder was unable to stand up to patent bullies, but is generally expected.
 
EdFred said:
I think I sent him a hundo. I'd think I'd like it back now.
Click to expand...

When I mentioned in the original flightprep thread that it is unwise to send him as a person money, folks trampled all over me.

I suspect that whatever he netted on the donation request got eaten by the lawyers he hired to file the various motions and responses to the suit. At the time he promised to make any leftover money available to anyone else willing to fight flightprep, now that he is in their camp, I doubt that he will be able to do so.
 
CJones said:
I don't think we've seen the last of FP - standby for them targeting Jepp other 'big dog' companies once they have a few of the freelance developers in their pocket to use as "See - they are using our patent, so our patent MUST be valid, so pay up!" fodder.
Click to expand...

It could also be the other way around - since it was done under an NDA, we really don't know, but I suspect that the fact that the lawyers for Jepp (Boeing) and AOPA told FP to pack sand helped RF negotiate an agreement that was a bit more reasonable.

I seriously doubt that FP is going to continue to pursue the big dogs. There could be alot to gain, but if they fight them and fail, they could lose everything. I think they will fade into the background. Whether you think they are legit or not, the way they went about their claims did not generate good publicity for them.
 
zaitcev said:
Get a clue. The credible threat to destroy is how FlightPrep does business. If they only threatened quetly, the next victim might be less agreeable. Now they know that FlightPrep will keep them down unless they pay. This is why they took RunwayFinder off the air first, to soften them up.
-- Pete
P.S. Just as in case with Microsoft FAT patents and Tom Tom, it's a little disappointing that RunwayFinder was unable to stand up to patent bullies, but is generally expected.
Click to expand...
RF went off the air first because the owner of RF chose to turn his site off. That is a well documented fact. Even the blog on RF stated this was the case.

Dave at RF ignored several requests from FP to discuss the situation of their patent to try and come to an agreement. But after being ignored, FP took Dave to court. Those are all undisputed facts.

Now the ascertain made by Dave and others is that the FP patent is invalid. The only way to prove that is to challenge the patent with the USPTO or get a judge to declare it as such. Dave had his lawyers look at doing exactly that according to what he had on his blog. In the end he settled. That tells me a little about the patent not being such a slam dunk to invalidate as many think it is. Does it mean the patent will never be invalidated? Of course not, but it tells me that a lot of money was wasted in this when the same outcome would have been possible had Dave not ignored the initial communications to begin with.

How do I know this would have been the outcome had Dave answered the initial letters? I do not know for sure, but looking at what happened between FP and other websites that they sent the same communications to that never went off the air and were able to make amenable royalty arrangements without all the drama.
 
I'll use RF because I like it, and nothing else I've used does the same job as well.

I won't use FlightPrep, because I still view them as causing all of this. Nor will I put any money towards either, seeing as the "details are confidential."
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'll use RF because I like it, and nothing else I've used does the same job as well.

I won't use FlightPrep, because I still view them as causing all of this. Nor will I put any money towards either, seeing as the "details are confidential."
Click to expand...


Agree +1
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'll use RF because I like it, and nothing else I've used does the same job as well.

I won't use FlightPrep, because I still view them as causing all of this. Nor will I put any money towards either, seeing as the "details are confidential."
Click to expand...

It's not back 100%

I've got a link set up on the PIlots 'N Paws website to show a flight plan for a transport request. I never got around to removing it. It simply passed zipcodes in the url. for example:

http://www.runwayfinder.com/?loc=ZIPCODE=43123;ZIPCODE=48162

would show the route from 43123 to 48162 (Grove City, OH to Monroe, MI). Runwayfinder now produces an error.
 
Steve Foley said:
It's not back 100%

I've got a link set up on the PIlots 'N Paws website to show a flight plan for a transport request. I never got around to removing it. It simply passed zipcodes in the url. for example:

http://www.runwayfinder.com/?loc=ZIPCODE=43123;ZIPCODE=48162

would show the route from 43123 to 48162 (Grove City, OH to Monroe, MI). Runwayfinder now produces an error.
Click to expand...

The links probably changed. See here:

http://runwayfinder.com/?loc=39.87879/-83.10055;41.94805/-83.40030&view=vfr
 
CJones said:
I'm glad to see the site back online, but I don't like the "Portions licensed by FlightPrep™ U.S. Patent number 7,640,098." bit. FP got exactly what they wanted - validity to their bogus patent.

I don't think we've seen the last of FP - standby for them targeting Jepp other 'big dog' companies once they have a few of the freelance developers in their pocket to use as "See - they are using our patent, so our patent MUST be valid, so pay up!" fodder.
Click to expand...

Jepp (and Boeing) have already told FP to pound sand. Do you really think FP has the money & lawyers to stand up to the in-house counsel at Boeing, who deal with contracts and patents day in and day out?
 
ScottM said:
The only way to prove that is to challenge the patent with the USPTO or get a judge to declare it as such. Dave had his lawyers look at doing exactly that according to what he had on his blog. In the end he settled. That tells me a little about the patent not being such a slam dunk to invalidate as many think it is.
Click to expand...

It's never a slam-dunk to get a patent invalidated. A business must decide whether it's cheaper to pay some kind of royalty or pursue the time & expense of a lawsuit. The cost for prosecuting this kind of lawsuit is quite high - the smart patent holder will generally offer a royalty that's lower than the cost of fighting a lawsuit. Legalized extortion does exist (and please note that I am NOT alleging that's what happened here, we simply don't have all the facts) and some firms engage in it as a matter of course. Just like some patent holders will lay in wait until a product or service has a very high revenue stream & then allege infringement in hopes of a much higher settlement.

Does it mean the patent will never be invalidated? Of course not, but it tells me that a lot of money was wasted in this when the same outcome would have been possible had Dave not ignored the initial communications to begin with.

How do I know this would have been the outcome had Dave answered the initial letters? I do not know for sure, but looking at what happened between FP and other websites that they sent the same communications to that never went off the air and were able to make amenable royalty arrangements without all the drama.
Click to expand...
 
murphey said:
Jepp (and Boeing) have already told FP to pound sand. Do you really think FP has the money & lawyers to stand up to the in-house counsel at Boeing, who deal with contracts and patents day in and day out?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the boys at FP who own this patent are also the ones that developed the Jeppesen flight planning software. I do not know where the info about Jepp telling FP to go pound sand came from. It could simply be that their agreement with the FP boys already had a grandfathered IP licensing clause in it.
 
murphey said:
Jepp (and Boeing) have already told FP to pound sand. Do you really think FP has the money & lawyers to stand up to the in-house counsel at Boeing, who deal with contracts and patents day in and day out?
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. Either way, I don't see the purpose for issuing what I would assume to be 'free' licenses to small mom-and-pop shops like SkyVector and RF if they didn't have bigger aspirations further down the road.


ScottM said:
Keep in mind that the boys at FP who own this patent are also the ones that developed the Jeppesen flight planning software. I do not know where the info about Jepp telling FP to go pound sand came from. It could simply be that their agreement with the FP boys already had a grandfathered IP licensing clause in it.
Click to expand...

In the early stages of FP trying to take over the world, they did contact Jepp and AOPA asking them to investigate whether their software was in violation of FP's patent. I don't know if Jepp investigated or not, but they basically told FP to go pound sand.
 
CJones said:
In the early stages of FP trying to take over the world, they did contact Jepp and AOPA asking them to investigate whether their software was in violation of FP's patent. I don't know if Jepp investigated or not, but they basically told FP to go pound sand.
Click to expand...
The only reference I can find that is credible is that Jepp and AOPA responded saying that the methods in the patent were not used in their product. Not exactly telling them to go pound sand at all. That is responding in an adult manner to a notice of possible infringement. Something that Dave at RF forgot to do when he put his fingers in his ears and basically "screamed I can't hear you" until FP was forced to take him to court. But Dave has now seen the light and lots of green leave his savings account to get to where he would have been if he had done what other companies had done in the first place.
 
ScottM said:
Keep in mind that the boys at FP who own this patent are also the ones that developed the Jeppesen flight planning software. I do not know where the info about Jepp telling FP to go pound sand came from. It could simply be that their agreement with the FP boys already had a grandfathered IP licensing clause in it.
Click to expand...

The old Jepp software is cited as 'prior art' in the patent. That pretty much precludes the patent holder to go after the the parts cited as such.
 
CJones said:
In the early stages of FP trying to take over the world, they did contact Jepp and AOPA asking them to investigate whether their software was in violation of FP's patent. I don't know if Jepp investigated or not, but they basically told FP to go pound sand.
Click to expand...

I suspect that given the real money at stake in their case, they carefully evaluated their technology relative to the patent and THEN told them to pound sand.
 
...and the money has been refunded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top