About 20 years ago, prior to ticket barcoding, I was connecting in Atlanta, going to Greenville, SC. Running late and running to the flight, I boarded the aircraft, moved to the rear cabin where my seat was located, and stored my carry-on bag overhead. I turned to find my seat occupied, and said, "I think I have this seat." The lady in the seat produced a ticket with the same seat number. I had a bewildered look on my face for an instant before she said, "...going to Memphis." I said, "this plane is going to Greenville." She became flustered, stood up, grabbed her bag and deplaned. I sat down, turned to the guy in the window seat and said with a smile, "she thought this plane was going to Memphis." He replied, [wait for it], "it is." I met one angry lady coming back up the aisle as I was deplaning.
I believe most of the aviation community supports a company's right to apply for and defend a patent. Yet a large majority also believe rightly or wrongly in this case that the patent was erroneously awarded because "prior art" existed. Most of us also are turned off by what seems to be heavy-handed legal tactics by Flight Prep. Both of those widely-shared views of Flight Prep have created a public relations nightmare for Flight Prep. None of us know what the courts would say about the legality of the patent, but even if they do have a valid claim here and prevail, Flight Prep should look up "Pyrrhic victory".
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory )