Austin Meyer, developer of X-Plane, is being sued for patent infringement and has asking for people to consider signing a petition to the Obama administration requiring that the losing party of any patent lawsuit be required to pay legal fees of the prevailing party.

 

Without entering into any discussion of the merits of Mr. Meyer's idea, it might be worthwhile for those who are so inclined to listen to his request for assistance. The threat of litigation hangs over all businesses, and unfortunately, Laminar Research does not have the 'deep pockets' of the Goliaths like Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Electronic Arts, and so on. The costs to defend such suits, even if your side is the 'winner' in court are crushing. As a result, many small to mid-cap companies cave-in and settle such suits, even if they are confident they would prevail at trial.

 

Unfortunately, the trial lawyers in this country are a genuine force. They are organized. They lobby. They hold many businesses (not just game making companies) 'hostage' by filing a suit (for a small filing fee), then compelling those companies to incur serious legal bills 'defending' against the lawsuit.

 

Little companies have almost no chance to actually "win" in such a scenario. Mr. Meyer has (thus far) chosen to fight, rather than surrender (settle), though only time and budget will tell if that vow can be fulfilled. As a person who greatly admires the fact that Laminar has gone forward in developing a viable flight simulation platform whilst Microsoft has chosen to abandon us completely to the whims of Lockheed Martin and some other smaller sim makers, it occurs to me that others in our little forums may wish to raise the flag on behalf of Laminar. If not for Laminar's sake, for our own!

 

Visit X-Plane's website to learn more about Mr. Meyer's problem - and his request for help. Many may feel "it's his problem, not ours", but I can tell you trolling litigators threaten virtually all businesses. If the lawyers filing such actions ran the risk of having to pay multi-million dollar costs if they lost at trial, many if not most of these suits would likely never see the light of day. Who benefits from the status quo? The trial lawyers. Who loses? The businessmen who are having the gun (of litigation) put to their heads. Who has the loudest voice and the greatest clout? You can figure that one out.

 

I have no idea whether or not Mr. Meyer and Laminar could actually 'afford' to pay 1.5M USD in projected fees and costs even if Laminar won at trial - but the very idea of such expenses threatens their company, and by extension, those who like their software and want to see them endure.

 

Again, I am not weighing in on merits or lack thereof the case at issue. Mr. Meyer's plea for signatures on his petition to our President seems reasonable. Whether any real changes occur as a result of this petition is an open question, however.

 

Learn more

This is such an important thing, and it transcends even our petty little squabbles over which sim is the best. I think in this situation, we need to circle the wagons and stand with Austin as a fellow simmer and aviation enthusiast. I will happily sign the petition, and would encourage others to as well.

 

In fact, this is something the Internet at large needs to get on board with. Any way to get it out beyond our little simming circle? A Reddit post, perhaps?

Even though I do not like those predatory patent trolls, there is something I don't get here...

 

From reading Austin's post, it seems that his line of defense is that 99% of other people do the same and don't get in trouble, why me? Kinda the same as 99% of people over-speeding on highways but you are the only one getting bust...

 

Now, did Austin actually use a technology without paying royalty to the developer? If so, then why are you guys trying to defend him?

 

In the end, and from what I understand, to insure and ensure his own profits, he is using a technology that does not belong to him without licensing it properly... So what?

From what i understand, the guy that is suing him never actually even developed the security software involved, only patenting the idea after it had been in use for a long time. Technically, he could sue google but he would only get his &@($* kicked. These guys are worse than scum.

From what i understand, the guy that is suing him never actually even developed the security software involved, only patenting the idea after it had been in use for a long time. Technically, he could sue google but he would only get his &@($* kicked. These guys are worse than scum.

 

But then, at the time it was included in X-plane, was it public domain or not?

But then, at the time it was included in X-plane, was it public domain or not?

 

You're confusing patents with copyright.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

Be very careful, as trial lawyers enter the courtroom to represent the weakest among us too. When one has a grievance the courts are our only venue to be heard. Sometimes a trial is the course of last resort. I’m not taking any sides on this issue because I am ignorant of all the details, but I know if Mr. Myers feels he has been wronged, and an out of court resolution is not in the cards, that he will too go to court with a trial lawyer to represent him.

 

I have no problem with the proposition that OP has made about the losing party of a patent lawsuit pay the fees of the prevailing party, just with the notion that lawyers who take a case to trial should be regarded as “scum”.

From what i understand, the guy that is suing him never actually even developed the security software involved, only patenting the idea after it had been in use for a long time. Technically, he could sue google but he would only get his &@($* kicked. These guys are worse than scum.

 

If you go and review some of the legal pleadings posted on the X-Plane site, the current holder of the patent is not the original holder of the patent. The patent has changed hands a couple of times, it appears. I would imagine there was some monetary considerations made when the patent changed ownership. So if Uniloc purchased the patent from the previous holder, who purchased it from the original holder, wouldn't that be considered "proper ownership" of a patent? Patents are commodities and can be bought and sold accordingly.

I gladly signed the petition.

 

 

jime

My name is on it.

The lawyers use the argument that if the proposal whereby the losing party pays the legal fees becomes law then the 'little person' will have no recourse in court.

 

Don't kid yourself. The little guy never did and still doesn't have any real traction in the courtroom.

 

Is it 'right' for personal injury lawyers to take 30% from the poor person who is severely hurt in an auto accident? "You pay nothing if we don't recover!" Here's news: Lawyers won't take your case on contingency unless a win is ASSURED. So, if your case is weak or edgy, little guy or not, you aren't gonna get BUPKUS.

 

I'm not here to bash lawyers. The merits (or lack thereof) of the patent claims case against Mr. Meyer and others in that action are unknown.

 

Intellectual property rights, such as patents, have a legitimate place in our society. People who actually "invent" a technology that is new and different deserve to get paid if that technology is used by someone else without permission. I am not advocating for or against Mr. Meyer. I am disturbed however, by trolling lawyers, and they abound.

 

Part of the reason is there simply are too many lawyers running around trying to earn a living. So if it's 'within the rules' to sue people at the drop of a hat, the real question remains, "Cui Bono?" (Who benefits?) In my view, the playing field is in need of leveling. Since the common system of remedy on the civil side of things is money, then those who seek money (by virtue of bringing suit for damages and seeking relief in the form of money) need to be prepared to see their own money depart if the trier of fact finds against them in the case at bar. The current system sees 'settlement' far more often than jury verdict (or verdict by the trial judge).

 

Many of the larger corporations have already figured out methods to circumvent the lawsuit. Claims arising in a dispute over the service or goods provided are often resolved via ARBITRATION. Lawyers don't like arbitration, but it is being seen more and more in many venues as an ALTERNATIVE to the traditional "Sue the bums" approach.

 

Our present system of civil law is in dire need of remodeling. Sadly, our laws are written by legislators who, more often than not, were LAWYERS before taking their place on the government bosom.

 

You can look around the business world and see the incessant bickering over patent rights - wars between Apple and Samsung come to mind, and other wars, over JAVA, and many of the programming methods and code snippets that are part and parcel of the software and hardware being sold world wide. Some of the thieving is egregious (think Samsung outright ripping off Apple designs in smart phones), and other cases are more esoteric.

 

The troubles come when a product is ground breaking (think x-Plane) and the future of that product is threatened by litigation. From what I gather, Mr. Meyer has been sued not for x-Plane as an overall product, but rather for the security methods he used to protect x-Plane on Android devices from being used by persons who did not pay for x-Plane. In other words, a licensing "Key" encryption scheme. Since Android devices might not always have a DVD-player, you can't just insert Disk 1 of x-Plane into your Android phone. As I understand it, the encryption schema at issue was provided to Mr. Meyer by Google, Inc. If that is true, then it would certainly seem likely that Google might have a share of Mr. Meyer's troubles. Frankly, I'm stunned if Google were excluded from the suit, as the pockets of Google dwarf those of Mr. Meyer. One can only conclude that Google may have been deliberately excluded by the plaintiff's attorney because Google could fight the case until the end of time, far beyond the resources of most law firms working on contingency. If Mr. Meyer's legal team is smart, they will develop a legal theory wherein Google might be REQUIRED to defend Mr. Meyer and others who developed Android software using technology directly provided by Google. While not an attorney, I could envision legal arguments that might be used to compel Google to enter as a defendant on behalf of Laminar Research et al.

 

x-Plane's future is threatened by this suit. Whether Mr. Meyer has done something wrong or not, is unknown. I'd like to think he only used the technology to protect his software product on Android devices that he obtained from Google, and therefore, in my view, Google should share in the defense of this case. In my mind, Google joining the case is the best possible outcome. The "petition" that Mr. Meyer seeks will merely force a "response" by the White House. No actual laws will be enacted as a de facto result of 100,000 or more signatures. Mr. Meyer may obtain some personal validation for his position if the petition gets a written response from The White House Staff - but it seems unlikely that actual change will take place anytime soon enough to spell relief for Laminar in this case.

 

It's unfortunate that software developers have to spend time and money worrying about who's got their back, as well as who's trying to stab them there. Et tu, Brute?

 

Courtrooms are the antithesis of innovation. In a typical class-action lawsuit the only 'winners' are the ATTORNEYS, who divvy up outrageous legal fees.

 

The members of the tort class are lucky if they receive a coupon good for $2 off their next major purchase of the offending product! It's a joke and an ugly one. I wish Mr. Meyer Godspeed.

I tried to sign it, but I will have to register at the "whitehouse.gov" site and create an account. Being a Portuguese citizen, can I do this? I know the ZIP code is not mandatory in the registering form, but is it legal for me to sign it?

I don't think there's a problem with signing it. I don't recall being asked if a person is a citizen or not when I signed it. Actually, it's more like a show of moral support, as I understand it - if 100,000 or more people sign the petition, then the White House is compelled to post a written "response" which could be anything from "Good Luck With That" to something else, but likely NO NEW LAWS will directly result from the petition reaching the 100,000 signatures plateau.

 

I have written to Mr. Meyer and offered encouragement and some suggestions on what I think are viable solutions he might consider. Of course he will rely on his own common sense and judgement, plus the advice of his counsel and staff.

 

It's a sad day when a product as good as x-Plane has its very existence threatened. Any way you look at it, that's just plain wrong. You have to admire Laminar. They not only build x-Plane for Windows, but for Linux and Mac, plus iPhone and Android! That's really innovative!

Just registered. Awaiting confirmation email. I will then sign ASAP! And, of course I a fully agree with all of your points regarding this case, involving not only LR but many other companies.

You really have to love the irony in this case: in trying to protect its own intellectual property (IP), Lamilar Research allegedly stole the intellectual property of Unilock. Undoubtably, this will cost Lamilar far more than any potential piracy of X-Plane ever would have.

 

I suspect the end result here will be the bankruptcy of Lamilar Research, and the end of X-Plane.

 

I know virtually nothing about the case, except what I see here and in the flightsim community. This is not particularly reliable information. The accounts I see from Lamilar, however, seem to be inconsistent. Some parts of their story don't make any sense at all.

 

The question I have is what caused Mr Meyer to beleive that he could use someone else's IP without paying for it? What caused him to believe that he could use this IP for free? I wonder if he would be as sympathtic to a fflight simmer who claime that since he found X-Plane for "free" on the Pirate Bay, that the flight simmer did not have to pay for it. What's sauce for the goose...

 

Usually publishers are very careful about this type of thing. I think that's why Microsoft did not use real life airlines in Flight Simulator and went to great pains in securing the right to use the aircraft designs which appear in the program. They wanted to avoid claims they were infringing on someone else's IP. Obviously, Lamilar Research was not as careful in respecting the IP of other people as they were in asserting their own rights to their IP.

 

I do believe that the OP has let his own bigotry and ignorance cloud his perceptions as to what is going on. In particular, blaming the trial lawyers for this seems to be downright comical. These lawsuits are brought by the "tall building" lawyers who wear $10,000 suits and are the hired guns of corporate America. But to blame the hired gun is foolish. One really needs to look at the people who hire these high priced attorneys.

 

In fact, the blame for the current state of IP law lies squarely with t he big money boys. If you don't like the current state of IP law, blame the likes of Sony and Disney. Those re the guys who can afford to pay high priced lobbyists to get the laws they want. The trial lawyers have nothing to do with this mess,

 

As for the English rule, which provides the prevailing party is paid his attorneys fees, it probably would not stop these lawuits. Instead, it would just make them more attractive to the plaintiffs in these cases. The claim for attorneys fees just become additional damages which the plaintiff will seek. It does nothing to discourage litigation.

 

Any lawsuit whicf takes 1.5 million to defend is not groundelss and frivolous. It is pretty damn serious.