I will admit right out – Blackboard is my least favorite LMS. I've always thought of it as an antiquated dinosaur that has ignored the last decade of Instructional Design theory. But, if people want to buy it, and they at least play fair, then I'll at least give them the right to exist. But the recent actions by Blackboard – patenting LMS's and then suing their top competitor – have baffled me.
I hoped that it was all just an ego trip. I had hoped that once they saw the outcry from the educational community they would say something like "oh, sorry – didn't know we were so wrong about this... we'll drop the lawsuit and the patent." Or at least "Oppps.... You busted us. Guess we’ll go back to the way it was."
But they have been downright frightening in their responses to the situation. After reading a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education (http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=5g41b7txfvjcn74cbzk1128x9g4trw1x), I just couldn't sit back as obvious BS was being thrown in to the debate ring. The article by The Chronicle is a good, balanced article. It's just the quotes from Blackboard that made my jaw drop. Do they really expect us to believe this?
1) "One example of what the patent does cover, Mr. Small said, is the method for giving a single user predefined roles in multiple online courses....Those features may be obvious today, but they weren't obvious at the time they were invented."
I nearly fell over at this one. This is where I find a serious flaw in Blackboard's "logic." From what I remember, Blackboard was invented in 1997. Giving users predefined roles in online programs wasn't innovative in 1987, much less 1997. There have been chat rooms where users could be a room moderator in one room, member in another, and guest in another for decades. You see, there are two types of innovators in the world – the truly innovative and the bumbling innovative. The bumbling innovators are those that just happen to be the first ones to stumble on the scene and "innovate" what anybody else in the entire world would have come up with had they been the first one there. But we give the title of innovator to the first one to stumble upon something. Sorry, Blackboard, that idea was an obvious 10 years ago as it is today. You sound like Al Gore trying to claim he invented the Internet.
I wouldn't be surprised that if someone did some research that they would find papers written well before 1997 that recommended "giving a single user predefined roles in multiple online courses."
2) "Mr. Small said Blackboard was still willing to negotiate with Desire2Learn over royalties that would be paid, in lieu of proceeding with the lawsuit."
One blog has renamed Blackboard as "Blackboard the Pirate." I would go so far as to say "Blackmail the Pirate." You try to paint yourself as a legitimate business trying to do honest work. I’m sorry, but an honest business would have contacted their competitors a long time ago and worked this out before filing a lawsuit. Desire2Learn was surprised by these actions. We all should be. Blackboard is saying "pay us some money or we'll sue." That is blackmail. That should be enough reason for the entire educational community to rise up and boycott your products straight out. Why did you not contact Desire2Learn long ago, and say "hey, we've got a patent coming that might affect you, let's work this out?" Why are you not filing the lawsuit on neutral territory? Why is it being filed in a pro-patent/inventor, "rocket docket" district? These are not the actions that the education world should support.
3) "This is not about limiting competition or innovation."
Anyone that has read the patent probably sat there and thought "well, I know that _____ program violates that, and that, and that.... oh, and that, too." And you just so happen to go after your top competitor first, even though they violate your patent less than other programs do (who I won't name here for fear of giving you some ideas)? You’ve been busted – fess up all ready!4) "It would make no sense for Blackboard to go after open-source programs like Moodle and Sakai, he said, because they are not commercial providers."
I don't think anyone is concerned about what you are interested in doing now. At least a quarter of all science fiction seems to be based on somebody creating a powerful weapon with good intentions, and then that weapon falling in to the wrong hands. Or the inventor becoming twisted in the end and using it for evil purposes. The point is not what you want to do with it now, but the power that it gives you in the future. Power that no one company should have. But, judging by your actions with Desire2Learn, I don't think anyone trusts that you have totally innocent motives with this.5) "And Blackboard's patent is not at all like Acacia's or Test.com's, he said, because both of those companies have sent letters to colleges demanding royalties." (referring to a quote by Peter Schilling)
Were we reading the same quote? Peter Schilling was saying that Acacia's or Test.com's patents were too broad. That was the comparison, not someone sending out letters demanding money. Typical big company smokescreen – address a legitimate concern with a totally un-related rebuttal.
6) "He said many e-learning companies could operate without infringing on the patent, though he declined to provide any examples."
Probably because there aren’t any examples. If quote number 3 above was true, why won’t you give any examples?