Control Vision's patent

I hate software patents. They *really* burn me when they're on things that
I've already discussed and planned to do. Here's one.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#188748

Any GPS can tell you where you are but Control Vision's Anywhere
Map system tells you where you should be in case your engine quits.
Anywhere Map's "cones of safety" feature has now been patented and
it falls under the category of "why didn't I think of that?"

Gosh, yes. Why wouldn't anyone else have thought of that?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...cf3e00bc8003fd

--kyler

Kyler, what you do now is to go to Control Vision and tell them to pay
you, based on the existence of prior art. If they refuse, threaten to
send your info to the USPTO and request a patent review. And then do it.
There's far too much of this stuff going on.

Kyler Laird wrote:
I hate software patents. They *really* burn me when they're on things that
I've already discussed and planned to do. Here's one.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#188748

Any GPS can tell you where you are but Control Vision's Anywhere
Map system tells you where you should be in case your engine quits.
Anywhere Map's "cones of safety" feature has now been patented and
it falls under the category of "why didn't I think of that?"

Gosh, yes. Why wouldn't anyone else have thought of that?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...cf3e00bc8003fd

--kyler

Kyler,

Gosh, yes. Why wouldn't anyone else have thought of that?

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...cf3e00bc8003fd


I hate to burst the bubble, but CV's cones of safety have been around pretty much since the
first version of their software, which must be at least three years ago. So, while you
thought of it, they still did it first.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

I hate to burst the bubble, but CV's cones of safety have been around pretty much since the
first version of their software, which must be at least three years ago.

Is it really just a cone? They don't take wind, turning requirements,
or terrain into account? (They don't handle air data, do they?)

Regardless, I hate that we encourage companies to patent obvious stuff
like this. What does it mean that they just patented something they've
been using for years?

--kyler

Kyler Laird wrote:

Thomas Borchert writes:


I hate to burst the bubble, but CV's cones of safety have been around pretty much since the
first version of their software, which must be at least three years ago.


Is it really just a cone? They don't take wind, turning requirements,
or terrain into account? (They don't handle air data, do they?)

Regardless, I hate that we encourage companies to patent obvious stuff
like this. What does it mean that they just patented something they've
been using for years?

--kyler

It probably means it took them that long to get through the USPTO.


Matt

Kyler,

They don't take wind, turning requirements,
or terrain into account? (They don't handle air data, do they?)


Nope, and I don't think they use airdata, either. Also, their cones are
aruond airfields, not the aircraft. And they do take field elevation
into account. See
http://docs.controlvision.com/pages/cones_of_safety.php

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

I hate to burst the bubble, but CV's cones of safety have been around
pretty much since the first version of their software, which must be
at least three years ago.

It probably means it took them that long to get through the USPTO.

Rule of thumb on IP cases is that prior art must have been known from the
date of patent filing and two years before that. Cases have been won on
thinner evidence, but that's a good place to start.

As for what constitues "prior art" - it really must be exact. In the
initial negotiations the patent holder claims their patent covers "Earth
and sky, and everything in between" and those accused of infringing claim
it is specific only to the holder's product. Then when it gets to prior
art, the tables turn. My experience is that most IP attorneys are not
interested in examples of prior art that are not themselves patents -
although if you rub their noses in it (product sold at K-Mart), they can be
swayed.

But the devil is in the details. Just a slight difference in a couple of
words in a claim can equate to days at a Markman hearing arguing
construction (definition).

jmk

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...
Thomas Borchert writes:

I hate to burst the bubble, but CV's cones of safety have been around
pretty much since the
first version of their software, which must be at least three years ago.

Is it really just a cone? They don't take wind, turning requirements,
or terrain into account? (They don't handle air data, do they?)

Regardless, I hate that we encourage companies to patent obvious stuff
like this. What does it mean that they just patented something they've
been using for years?

--kyler

Kyler,

Chelton Flight System's Prick Rice (dyslexic but appropriate spelling) has a
patent for the airplane-centric version of this for an implementation that
draws a glide area based on wind and terrain. I agree with you that
software patents for inherently obvious functions are bunk. There are only
so many ways to depict a glide area, and physics are physics so anyone with
knowledge of aviation and software would come up with this so it really
isn't all that novel.

Dean

Kyler,

Chelton Flight System's Prick Rice has a patent for the airplane
centric version of this which takes into account terrain and wind. I
agree with you that inherently obvious stuff like this shouldn't be
patented, especially when it is strictly a software function.

By the way, have you seen the notice about the proposal to restrict the
DAFIF to DoD user's only starting October 1, 2005? I'm surprised that
you haven't posted any complaints about that!

Dean

test