X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:52:37 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail.crescentpark.com ([66.192.64.50] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.11) with ESMTP id 4647709 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 02:40:19 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.192.64.50; envelope-from=dtaylor@crescentpark.com X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CBA019.14D69F2C" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Runwayfinder X-Original-Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 02:39:51 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <4BC31C60B4CBCD4CB1D0A2F716CC711BFD0B08@server31.crescentpark.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Runwayfinder Thread-Index: Acuf2jnwf8PbKi+TS6uGx30BOUvQpgAPgB+A References: From: "Taylor, David" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CBA019.14D69F2C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Our patent laws in this country are crap. They need to be overhauled. Yes innovative ideas need to be protected, but being the first one to get the paperwork to the courthouse is not innovation. =20 =20 It takes a low moral conscience to defend a system that siphons billions of dollars into the pockets of a few who add no value whatsoever to anything. =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Colyn Case Sent: 12-19-10-Sun 19:10 To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Runwayfinder =20 I totally understand Jon's point. =20 I think the protection of technology investment argument is extremely weak on this one. Everybody who ever created a pc flight planner made a big investment. This is more about change of venue. =20 If indoor plumbing had happened in 1980 I suppose you could get a patent on toilet paper that worked indoors if you were the first one to do the research. Even if the courts allowed it wouldn't you feel a little conscience about charging other people for your "invention". =20 If this ruling stand basically any program you've seen on a pc could be patentable the first time it appears on the net. =20 =20 On Dec 16, 2010, at 8:34 PM, paul miller wrote: I'm not sure I understand your argument Jon. FlightPrep has a patent. Stenbock & Everson probably spent a lot on the technology or at least was first to file. Someone delivers a low cost equivalent without a license. A dispute arises. It happens every day. Technology needs to be protected just like all other inventions. If you disagree, you have to go to court or get a license or do something else. I cannot duplicate Jepp's plates nor AOPA's articles. I can't copy ASA's flight training programs nor FlighPrep's data. Every one of those companies no doubt has sent nastygrams claiming infringement to protect their investment and source of revenue yet they flourish and continue to be supported. I don't understand the retaliation issue you have with S&E except perhaps the publicity over using brute force against an individual. Copy some Jepp plates without permission and this story pales in comparison. =20 Paul Legacy N357V=20 On 2010-12-16, at 12:01 PM, Jon Socolof wrote: Is anyone else disturbed by the activities of FlightPrep against Runwayfinder.com , a little free online flight planner? They also went after Jepp/AOPA and other flight planners. The Van's community is following pretty closely. I for one, will never purchase from any Stenbock and Everson company including Flightprep, ASA, etc. I hope the Lancair community will support the Van's community in this one. =20 Jon Legacy N332E =20 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CBA019.14D69F2C Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Our patent laws in this country are crap.  They need to be = overhauled.  Yes innovative ideas need to be protected, but being = the first one to get the paperwork to the courthouse is not = innovation. 

 

It takes a low moral conscience to defend a system that siphons = billions of dollars into the pockets of a few who add no value = whatsoever to anything.

 

From:= = Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Colyn Case
Sent: 12-19-10-Sun 19:10
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: = Runwayfinder

 

I totally = understand Jon's point.    

I think the protection of technology investment = argument is extremely weak on this one.   Everybody who ever = created a pc flight planner made a big investment.  This is more = about change of venue.

 

If indoor plumbing had happened in 1980 I suppose you = could get a patent on toilet paper that worked indoors if you were the = first one to do the research.   Even if the courts allowed it = wouldn't you feel a little conscience about charging other people for = your "invention".

 

If this ruling stand basically any program you've seen = on a pc could be patentable the first time it appears on the net. =   

 

On = Dec 16, 2010, at 8:34 PM, paul miller wrote:



I'm = not sure I understand your argument Jon.  FlightPrep has a patent. =   Stenbock & Everson probably spent a lot on the technology or = at least was first to file.   Someone delivers a low cost = equivalent without a license.    A dispute arises.  It = happens every day.   Technology needs to be protected just like all = other inventions.   If you disagree, you have to go to court or get = a license or do something else.   I cannot duplicate Jepp's plates = nor AOPA's articles. I can't copy ASA's flight training programs nor = FlighPrep's data.   Every one of those companies no doubt has sent = nastygrams claiming infringement to protect their investment and source = of revenue yet they flourish and continue to be supported.   I = don't understand the retaliation issue you have with S&E except = perhaps the publicity over using brute force against an individual. =   Copy some Jepp plates without permission and this story pales in = comparison.

 

Paul

Legacy N357V 

On 2010-12-16, at 12:01 PM, Jon Socolof = wrote:



Is anyone = else disturbed by the activities of FlightPrep against Runwayfinder.com, a little free = online flight planner? They also went after Jepp/AOPA and other flight = planners. The Van’s community is following pretty closely.  I = for one, will never purchase from any Stenbock and Everson company = including Flightprep, ASA, etc.  I hope the Lancair community will = support the Van’s community in this = one.

 =

Jon

Legacy = N332E

 =

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01CBA019.14D69F2C--