Software Patents Shut Down RunwayFinder • Hacker News Board

Re: Software Patents Shut Down RunwayFinder

#51

Post by ScottBurson » Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 6:21 PM UTC

kj12345 wrote: post #49

When a patent establishes a claim, and then says something like "Claim 19: The process of claim 18 further comprising overlaying a route line", does that mean the patent is narrowed to only things that include route lines, or does it still apply to systems with/without route lines? If it's not narrowed by the additional claims, what purpose do the additional claims serve?

The benefit of multiple claims is separability. In your example, claim 18 might be found invalid, but claim 19, since it requires an additional element, might still be valid. On the other hand, claim 18 might not be invalidated, in which case the patent is broader (and therefore more valuable) than if it had included only claim 19.

Re: Software Patents Shut Down RunwayFinder

#52

Post by aristidb » Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 6:23 PM UTC

patd wrote: post #16

findm wrote: post #9

Not only is the software patent outrageous but the lawyer math is totally baloney every visitor represents a lost sale of 149. ridiculous.

To be fair, it says "potential lost sale" : Each visit represents a potential lost sale of our client’s patented invention at $149 per sale

Then it should at least be scaled by the probability of actually converting to a sale...

Re: Software Patents Shut Down RunwayFinder

#53

Post by nkurz » Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 6:26 PM UTC

kj12345 wrote: post #49

When a patent establishes a claim, and then says something like "Claim 19: The process of claim 18 further comprising overlaying a route line", does that mean the patent is narrowed to only things that include route lines, or does it still apply to systems with/without route lines? If it's not narrowed by the additional claims, what purpose do the additional claims serve?

Each of the claims is independent and additional. They are made so that it is possible for the patent examiner to approve the patent claim by claim with a more narrow scope, rather than rejecting it as a whole. From the applicant's point of view, the best case is that all claims are approved, but the usual goal is to write a series of increasingly narrower claims so that at least something gets approved. If nothing is rejected, you probably have not made it broad enough. Having a more narrow scope may also determine in a law suit whether something is infringing: if you have an explicit claim, it's more clearly infringing.

Re: Software Patents Shut Down RunwayFinder

#54

Post by kj12345 » Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 6:37 PM UTC

ScottBurson wrote: post #51

kj12345 wrote: post #49

When a patent establishes a claim, and then says something like "Claim 19: The process of claim 18 further comprising overlaying a route line", does that mean the patent is narrowed to only things that include route lines, or does it still apply to systems with/without route lines? If it's not narrowed by the additional claims, what purpose do the additional claims serve?

The benefit of multiple claims is separability. In your example, claim 18 might be found invalid, but claim 19, since it requires an additional element, might still be valid. On the other hand, claim 18 might not be invalidated, in which case the patent is broader (and therefore more valuable) than if it had included only claim 19.

Interesting, so the most broad claim that gets the most press might not end up being the one that "counts", but on the other hand when someone says you have to read the whole patent to know how narrow it is that's not necessarily true either, since the most broad claim could be ruled valid.

Re: Software Patents Shut Down RunwayFinder

#55

Post by bld » Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 6:40 PM UTC

Vivtek wrote: post #15

Vivtek wrote: post #11

Oh, good Lord, when the patent was filed, RunwayFinder was already online . Talk about prior art! This kind of abuse just boils my blood, especially when it involves this kind of penny-ante bullshit, the whole rent-seeking mentality of identifying a niche market that could really benefit from more open information and then trying to dominate it for chump change.

I was somewhat taken aback to realize that for all the talk at EFF about their patent busting project ( http://w2.eff.org/patent/wp.php ), there doesn't seem to be any public database of bustable patents, suggested prior art, or documented harm done. Chilling Effects has a patent section ( http://www.chillingeffects.org/patent/ ) - but it also doesn't seem to have much of a database-type thing. And the same goes for…

The US patent office has the Peer to Patent project for public comment on pending patent applications: http://www.peertopatent.org/

Looks like it's voluntary and applies to a limited number of patent applications, but it is a step in the right direction by the US patent office.

Re: Software Patents Shut Down RunwayFinder

#56

Post by joe_the_user » Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 8:05 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #35

blantonl wrote: post #26

FlightPrep, the patent owner, posted this response to the issue: http://blog.flightprep.com/2010/12/regarding-runwayfinder-sh...

Definitely good to see the other side's response, but the post immediately prompts the question: what does Parsons stand to gain if he is shutting down RunwayFinder in order to "try this case in the court of public opinion" as FlightPrep claims (rather than simply to avoid getting sued over his hobby)?

Definitely good to see the other side's response and see what forked tongued baloney it is...

"... our good faith offer to provide RunwayFinder a free license during negotiation for a constructive resolution to our dispute and absent any demands by FlightPrep"

IANAL but, as others have said, "absent any demands" could be interpreted as "if you're willing to roll over and accept our utterly bogus patent.

"constructive" just as much meaning "profitable to our rent-seeking schemes"...

And somehow the pilots community is against software patents? I wouldn't imagine this an militant group of hacker. But after this experience, it seems they've learned a little bit...

Re: Software Patents Shut Down RunwayFinder

#57

Post by tif » Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 8:08 PM UTC

gjm11 wrote: post #27

shrikant wrote: post #18

RunwayFinder says: They won’t talk to me. Instead I’m stuck dealing with their lawyers who twice said that if RunwayFinder pays a license fee (would you like 10% or 20% of zero?) or removes the website that they will drop the lawsuit. Unfortunately, they are now reneging on that and posturing for more. They are claiming damages of $3.2M per month. FlightPrep responds: http://blog.flightprep.com/2010/12/regarding-runw…

What's the betting that the terms of that "free" licence involve some sort of admission of RunwayFinder's guilt, or of the validity of FlightPrep's patent?

Doesn't the simple act of accepting a (free or otherwise) license from someone imply that that you accept their right to grant said license?

Both parties I'm sure are aware of this; it's simply posturing on FlightPrep's part with the hope that RunwayFinder will be dumb enough to accept it and thereby lose in the long run.

Re: Software Patents Shut Down RunwayFinder

#58

Post by Splines » Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 8:09 PM UTC

jeffmould wrote: post #36

From the patent, in the "Background of Invention" section: However, as will become obvious later, additional applications of this invention may also include the field of cartography, route planning for motor vehicles, marine vehicles and similar utilization. So does this mean they could potentially go after MapQuest or Google Maps for providing route planning for motor vehicles as well?

Wouldn't it be the other way around? MapQuest was around well before 2001.

Re: Software Patents Shut Down RunwayFinder

#59

Post by Empedocles99 » Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 8:20 PM UTC

Premise: a) Many (most?) small software outfits, and software developers don't agree that software should be patentable.

b) Some of us would be willing to pay an insurance premium against patent trolls

Proposal: Form an organization (or convince an existing one like the EFF) funded (donations, I'd presume) by all of us to:

a) Lobby for changes to to the patent process and law.

b) Aggressively challenge obvious software patents as being obvious, or using prior art.

c) Serve as a communal defense fund/legal help for small businesses against patent trolls.

d) Maintain a community database of bad patents and potential prior art (to be used in defensive or offensive legal actions)

Re: Software Patents Shut Down RunwayFinder

#60

Post by conorh » Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 8:34 PM UTC

Reading through the timeline it seems like the chose to enforce their (in my opinion, bogus) patent in a very agressive way. Don't like this company at all.