Let's Start Some REAL Dialogue On This Issue

In all the hub-bub created by the Flight Prep controversy, we're concerned that substantive discussion aren't taking place and some of the real issues seem to be falling by the wayside. The few questions we've seen (partially) addressed are the kind of soft-ball interrogatories that are easy to defuse and evade... and do little to bring comprehension to the matter.

That being the case, we're sending the first in a series of questions to the folks at FlightPrep in the hopes that they'll see fit to address these issues for the aviation world to see. We honestly feel that if their motives are as simple as they claim... to see that their Intellectual Property is respected and their work properly recognized and compensated, that these are are proper  questions to be asking.

1. What are the unique aspects of your invention that allowed you to succeed in receiving the patent that is at the center of this controversy... i.e., what unique IP did you invent that did not exist previously?

   

2. Why did you seem to target low revenue or non-revenue business providing free services to the GA community in your legal actions and patent compensation claims and why not other more profitable/substantial companies?
    
3. What aspects, features, technology or properties in use on RunwayFinder.com allegedly infringed on your patent?

   
   RunwayFinder.com

4. What aspects, features, technology or properties in use on NavMonster.com allegedly infringed on your patent?

   

5. What aspects, features, technology or properties in use on skyvector.com allegedly infringed on your patent?

    

6. You have apparently sent letters to AOPA, Jeppesen, Fltplan.com and other online businesses and programs in order to seek potential compensation for possible infringement of your IP/Patent... could you please articulate, in detail, what each of these programs might be doing that would be a violation of your patented IP?
    
7. You have reportedly asked for discussions with potential infringers of your IP --  confidential discussions that would have been conducted in secrecy and outside of public inspection or examination... is this the only manner in which you will discuss these issues? In other words, are you amenable to discuss these issues outside of the strict confidentiality restrictions you have allegedly placed on those you believe to be infringing on your IP?

    

8. Why has FlightPrep sought to restrict commentary on its blogs and FaceBook pages?
    
9. What effect has the anti-FlightPrep sentiment had on your company?
    
10. If you had the chance to wind the clock back a bit... how might you have approached your IP/Patent compensation issues, and the reaction to same, differently than the path you took to this point?
     
11. Is it your intention, via this patent (or future patents), to extend your IP claims to flight planning products and programs not using online methods of dissemination?
     
12. What other patent applications are you undertaking at this time?

Please respond to publisher@aero-news.net... we look forward to reporting your answers and insights in an upcoming Aero-News report. Thank you for your time and attention. Once these questions are answered, we will, no doubt, have some additional thoughts to share and some questions to ask as a result... it is our hope that this discourse will bring clarity to an already muddled, emotionally charged, situation.

Sincerely,
 James Richard Campbell, ANN Editor-In-Chief

FMI: Comments/Criticism For ANN On The FlightPrep Situation???