Control Vision's patent

[Kyler Laird]

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/archives/avflash/323-full.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/rec.aviation.misc/browse_thread/thread/1ccf3e00bc8003fd

--kyler

[Rip]

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/archives/avflash/323-full.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/rec.aviation.misc/browse_thread/thread/1ccf3e00bc8003fd
>
> --kyler

[Thomas Borchert]

Kyler,

> Gosh, yes. Why wouldn't anyone else have thought of that?
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.misc/browse_thread/thread/1ccf3e00bc8003fd
>

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)

[Kyler Laird]

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

[Matt Whiting]

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

[Thomas Borchert]

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)

[James M. Knox]

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

[Dean Wilkinson]

"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

[[email protected]]

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

[[email protected]]

test

[Kyler Laird]

Thomas Borchert > writes:

>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

Oooooohhh...now I get it. I was thinking more in terms of "here are all
of the places you can glide *now*" not "wait until you're over here to
lose an engine." It would be more of a realtime extension to the
"nearest" button functionality.

O.k., so my idea really isn't affected by their patent. I still hate
software patents.

Thanks for the clarification.

BTW, I take issue with this.
Around each airport there is a region of airspace from which
an airplane can safely glide to a landing. We refer to this
space as the Cone of Safety.
My wife likes to point out that there was a time when landing at an
airport was the exception - certainly not a requirement for a safe
landing.

--kyler

[Thomas Borchert]

Kyler,

> BTW, I take issue with this.
> Around each airport there is a region of airspace from which
> an airplane can safely glide to a landing. We refer to this
> space as the Cone of Safety.
> My wife likes to point out that there was a time when landing at an
> airport was the exception - certainly not a requirement for a safe
> landing.
>

I agree. Might generate the wrong mindset. OTOH, when you look at their
screenshots, you have this nice effect of being at 8000 in the
northeastand all the cones nicele overlap to make the whole flight path
within reach of a field.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)