No posts today.
Not even about Blackboard.
Author: Michael Feldstein
-
Grounds for Challenging a U.S. Patent
Some information is being passed to me from various community members who have spoken with lawyers and am beginning to get a clearer picture of how the prior art must be framed. Note that this is all generic patent advice so far; I have no information yet about a lawyer’s analysis of Blackboard’s specific patent. (more…)
-
NoEduPatents.org Wiki
Since we’ve already reached the limits of the prior art documentation we can feasibly do within the bounds of Wikipedia’s mission, there is now room to add at the NoEduPatents.org wiki. Please note the drill-down to the Blackboard-specific area.
Go to town, folks.
-
An Open Letter to the CEO of eCollege
Dear Mr. Thorne:
I commend you on your words in your recent press release regarding the Blackboard patent:
The fact that one company has been granted a patent for such a broad application and now is engaging in litigation with another eLearning provider is unfortunate for a market that traditionally has been fueled by innovation and choice. It also is unfortunate that Blackboard chose not to issue a press release when the patent was awarded this past January, at a time when the Department of Justice was investigating the antitrust ramifications of Blackboard’s merger with its competitor, WebCT.
Many in the eLearning community agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment. An environment of patent litigation absolutely will damage both innovation and customer choice in the eLearning marketplace. Given this vital issue of mutual interest, I hope you will understand when I express concern regarding eCollege’s own U.S.-issued patent numbers 6470171, 6965752, and 6871043 as well as pending U.S. patent application numbers 10062214, 10061794, 10766612, 10905862, 10906025, 10906033, 10906025, 11160487, 10870099, 11161151. (more…)
-
How the LMOS Could Circumvent the Blackboard Patent and Why It Wouldn't Matter
I’ve heard a handful of suggestions from different sources recently about ways in which the Blackboard patent could be circumvented. There are almost always ways to avoid infringing if one tries hard enough. For example, the LMOS probably wouldn’t violate Blackboard’s patent because it wouldn’t have to come configured in the way that Blackboard’s patent suggests out-of-the-box. Users would add applications to it in whatever combination and configuration they choose. Likewise, the much-vaunted PLE probably wouldn’t infringe either.
But it wouldn’t matter. This would not prevent Blackboard’s successful prosecution of their patent infringement suit from chilling innovation. Here’s why: (more…)
-
A Good Visual Analysis of the Blackboard Patent Claims
Al Essa has taken my translation of the patent claims to the next level. It’s a very clear, useful, and succinct explanation of just what the patent says Blackboard is claiming to have invented. I don’t think it can be boiled down any simpler than this.
-
Blackboard CEO Responds on the Patent Issue
The gents at EdTechTalk ran a terrific Skypecast discussion last night (archived here) on the Blackboard patent and DOPA. I’ll leave it to others to comment on the discussion itself. What I find interesting is the letter that Blackboard CEO Michael Chasen wrote to our hosts in response to their invitation to join the talk. The full letter is on web page for the Skypecast archive, but here’s an excerpt that I find interesting: (more…)