24 ms·

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 in

by Vivtek 16y ago

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.

Vivtek 16y ago
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 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/ http://www.chillingeffects.org/patent/) - but it also doesn't seem to have much of a database-type thing. And the same goes for PUBPAT (http://www.pubpat.org/ http://www.pubpat.org/). Is there anything else out there I'm missing?
- bld 16y ago
  The US patent office has the Peer to Patent project for public comment on pending patent applications: http://www.peertopatent.org/ 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.
mmastrac 16y ago
EDIT: A comment below notes that this is a divisional patent and might have a date in 2001: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2008772 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2008772 On the other hand, there's lots of prior art for drawing flight information on maps. Here's a video game from the 1980's that I played: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC9i1drUg8c#t=2m15s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC9i1drUg8c#t=2m15s =========== It's easy to validate the claims that RunwayFinder forms prior art for the patent, assuming that RunwayFinder hasn't changed significantly since then: First blog post: http://blog.runwayfinder.com/2005/07/ http://blog.runwayfinder.com/2005/07/ Slow snapshot from archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20051030165731/http://www.runwayfinder.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20051030165731/http://www.runwayf... Patent filing date: 09/28/2005, via http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7640098.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7640098.html
- fingerprinter 16y ago
  Ok, I read the claim, looked at the dates and have to say this...WTF? When I was in college I worked on a system for a government affiliated agency doing research into flight simulators and other aviation related software. The exact project I worked on did this patents claim as base functionality before we did the hard work. This was 1996. That technology had been around for, oh, probably 4 years at this point. I'm 100% sure that this software was not productized to be seen by the patent office (nor was a patent filed by this agency...), but this technology has existed in one form or another since the invention of networked computing and having computable aviation data.
HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago
when the patent was filed, RunwayFinder was already online Doesn't matter. Patents are awarded by first to invent not first to file.
- aidenn0 16y ago
  In the US that is true, but in Europe it's first to file
- pierrefar 16y ago
  Depends on where you are in the world. The European Patent Office explains: Virtually every patent office in the world (including the EPO and the JPO) is based on a first-to-file system. ... The USPTO, however, is the only office to be based on a first-to-invent system, meaning that a patent is granted to the person who first conceived and practiced the invention, rather than to the person who first filed the invention with authorities. http://www.epo.org/topics/patent-system/patents-around-the-world.html http://www.epo.org/topics/patent-system/patents-around-the-w...
  - Natsu 16y ago
    I know that they want to change that, too, but I really hope they don't. Otherwise, the people who didn't think a thing was even worth patenting (or who couldn't afford to patent it) will have their inventions stolen from them. I will justify the use of "stolen" here by saying it's because they're no longer legally able to use their own idea. Restricting an idea via IP laws is one of the few ways an idea can actually be stolen.
    - flipbrad 16y ago
      i'm not sure that's true, necessarily. IANAL (yet), but unless I'm mistaken, a patent still has to be novel. So if they had publicly disclosed what they thought had no value... they could invalidate any later patent that tried to make it illegal for them to use their idea. As for the obvious comeback - no, you shouldn't not make public something which you think has no value. Either patent it or stick it out there to inspire someone with a different vision to your own. Don't hoard without knowing how to execute, especially without believing it's worth executing. As far as I'm concerned if you're doing that you deserve no rights to your 'invention' even if someone then comes along and patents it.
cduan 16y ago
This line in the patent: This is a divisional of application Ser. No. 09/919,672, filed Jul. 31, 2001. means that it was effectively filed on that date, so you would need prior art predating 2001. (Though it might be more complicated than that, it depends on a couple of things.)
- cromulent 16y ago
  Also, FlightPrep refer to a 2004 review of online flight planners from the Aviation Consumer magazine. So, I would guess they date their invention before that. http://www.flightprep.com/rootpage.php?page=aviationconsumer http://www.flightprep.com/rootpage.php?page=aviationconsumer

by Vivtek 16y ago

Vivtek 16y ago

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 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/ http://www.chillingeffects.org/patent/) - but it also doesn't seem to have much of a database-type thing. And the same goes for PUBPAT (http://www.pubpat.org/ http://www.pubpat.org/). Is there anything else out there I'm missing?

bld 16y ago
The US patent office has the Peer to Patent project for public comment on pending patent applications: http://www.peertopatent.org/ 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.

mmastrac 16y ago

EDIT: A comment below notes that this is a divisional patent and might have a date in 2001: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2008772 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2008772 On the other hand, there's lots of prior art for drawing flight information on maps. Here's a video game from the 1980's that I played: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC9i1drUg8c#t=2m15s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC9i1drUg8c#t=2m15s =========== It's easy to validate the claims that RunwayFinder forms prior art for the patent, assuming that RunwayFinder hasn't changed significantly since then: First blog post: http://blog.runwayfinder.com/2005/07/ http://blog.runwayfinder.com/2005/07/ Slow snapshot from archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20051030165731/http://www.runwayfinder.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20051030165731/http://www.runwayf... Patent filing date: 09/28/2005, via http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7640098.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7640098.html

fingerprinter 16y ago
Ok, I read the claim, looked at the dates and have to say this...WTF? When I was in college I worked on a system for a government affiliated agency doing research into flight simulators and other aviation related software. The exact project I worked on did this patents claim as base functionality before we did the hard work. This was 1996. That technology had been around for, oh, probably 4 years at this point. I'm 100% sure that this software was not productized to be seen by the patent office (nor was a patent filed by this agency...), but this technology has existed in one form or another since the invention of networked computing and having computable aviation data.

HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago

when the patent was filed, RunwayFinder was already online Doesn't matter. Patents are awarded by first to invent not first to file.

aidenn0 16y ago
In the US that is true, but in Europe it's first to file
pierrefar 16y ago
Depends on where you are in the world. The European Patent Office explains: Virtually every patent office in the world (including the EPO and the JPO) is based on a first-to-file system. ... The USPTO, however, is the only office to be based on a first-to-invent system, meaning that a patent is granted to the person who first conceived and practiced the invention, rather than to the person who first filed the invention with authorities. http://www.epo.org/topics/patent-system/patents-around-the-world.html http://www.epo.org/topics/patent-system/patents-around-the-w...
- Natsu 16y ago
  I know that they want to change that, too, but I really hope they don't. Otherwise, the people who didn't think a thing was even worth patenting (or who couldn't afford to patent it) will have their inventions stolen from them. I will justify the use of "stolen" here by saying it's because they're no longer legally able to use their own idea. Restricting an idea via IP laws is one of the few ways an idea can actually be stolen.
  - flipbrad 16y ago
    i'm not sure that's true, necessarily. IANAL (yet), but unless I'm mistaken, a patent still has to be novel. So if they had publicly disclosed what they thought had no value... they could invalidate any later patent that tried to make it illegal for them to use their idea. As for the obvious comeback - no, you shouldn't not make public something which you think has no value. Either patent it or stick it out there to inspire someone with a different vision to your own. Don't hoard without knowing how to execute, especially without believing it's worth executing. As far as I'm concerned if you're doing that you deserve no rights to your 'invention' even if someone then comes along and patents it.

cduan 16y ago

This line in the patent: This is a divisional of application Ser. No. 09/919,672, filed Jul. 31, 2001. means that it was effectively filed on that date, so you would need prior art predating 2001. (Though it might be more complicated than that, it depends on a couple of things.)

cromulent 16y ago
Also, FlightPrep refer to a 2004 review of online flight planners from the Aviation Consumer magazine. So, I would guess they date their invention before that. http://www.flightprep.com/rootpage.php?page=aviationconsumer http://www.flightprep.com/rootpage.php?page=aviationconsumer