I didn’t intend to post about this, but people keep asking me what I think, so I guess I need to get something up. For starters, you should read Michael Korcuska’s post on the subject. I agree with everything he says. Beyond that, here’s what I think:
Category: LMS & Learning Platforms
Everything you want to know about Learning Management Systems and whatever comes after them.
-
Sakai Paris 2008: The State of the Union
Let me cut to the chase. If you looked at Sakai in the past and ruled it out, it’s time to look again.
This is a new Sakai.
-
D2L Resolves Current Patent Burdens
According to the latest entry on D2L’s patent blog, D2L has payed the court judgment plus post-judgment interest in full and has also migrated all customers to version 8.3 of their software, which they claim does not infringe on the patent. There’s been some FUD flying around about whether D2L could handle the financial impact of the judgment. Well, they just did handle it. End of discussion.
-
Blackboard and Desire2Learn Fight Over Venue for Next Round
*Sigh.* At some point I hope the world–and the Blackboard case–will slow down enough so that I’ll actually have time to blog about something else.
Here’s the latest from D2L’s patent blog:
April, 2008 – Matthew Small, Blackboard’s Chief Legal Officer:
“Certainly we believe the reexamination process is a healthy process. It serves to generally strengthen patents, and this case is no different.”http://www.thejournal.com/articles/22358
May, 2008 – Blackboard’s filing with the Patent & Trademark Office:
“Patent Owner Blackboard Inc. (“Blackboard”) hereby petitions the Office to suspend the inter partes reexamination between Blackboard and Third Party Requester Desire2Learn Inc. . . .”
Petition To Suspend Inter Partes Reexamination Under 35 U.S.C 6314(C)
Yesterday, despite Blackboard’s prior assertions (including on its own website) about welcoming the re-examination of their patent, Blackboard has now requested that the Patent and Trademark Office stop its re-examination of the patent. We will leave it to others to speculate about the reasons for Blackboard’s change of heart.
Note: we have not yet received the exhibits that the filing to which the filing refers. When we do receive them, we will post them. (As an aside, we’re still awaiting the exhibits to Blackboard’s response to the PTO’s rejection – they, too, will be posted upon receipt.)
On another note, and consistent with our position since the beginning of this litigation, yesterday we filed an Emergency Motion To Stay Proceedings Pending Reexamination Or Alternatively, Motion To Stay Judgment Pending Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That filing, as well as the numerous exhibits and related papers that accompanied it, can be found here.
It looks like D2L wants to pursue this through the USPTO while Blackboard wants to go through the US Court of Appeals. Each is trying to petition one body or other to suspend what could be duplicative processes.
-
Cost of Exit
A while back, I picked up on D’Arcy Norman’s complaint about how Moodle doesn’t export content to a standard. In a response to one of the comments on my post, I suggested that open source LMS communities like Moodle’s should encourage adopting institutions to consider the cost of exit as a selection criterion for their LMS. Doing so would encourage them to invest in export capabilities at the time when their commitment to the platform is high.
Well, as Chuck Severence notes, Oxford is considering doing exactly that with Sakai. Check out his post for some good notes on the pros and cons of various export strategies.
-
Is Blackboard's Lawyer Calling D2L's Customers?
Here’s an interesting bit from D2L’s patent blog:
Clients have been calling us to let us know that Matthew Small, General Counsel of Blackboard, has been calling them. From what we understand, his purpose appears to be twofold: (1) to encourage clients to switch to Blackboard ; and (2) to create FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) with respect to alternative products and services in the eLearning space.From what we gather, he has been making statements that are not supported by the record in the Court or by the actions of the Patent & Trademark Office. If your organization is called, we invite you to suggest to Mr. Small that we are always willing to engage in an open dialogue with you and him.
We remain confident that Learning Environment version 8.3 is an appropriate design-around to the patent claims – as we announced nearly one month ago. We also remain confident that the patent’s claims are invalid and that the Courts and the PTO will ultimately invalidate the patent.
As there is no www.factcheck.org for this litigation, we continue to encourage you to review the documents and the facts. We are happy to discuss any questions that any client, or other interested people, may have. Just let us know!
John Baker, President and CEO ([email protected])
Diane Lank, General Counsel and Director, Legal Services ([email protected])
John McLeod, Director of Marketing ([email protected])It’s unsurprising that an aggressive company engaged in a lawsuit with its competitor would use the suit to try to poach customers. But I’ve never heard of a company having their lawyer act as a sales guy. If it’s true, it certainly demonstrates a pretty high level of chutzpah.
I’m very curious to find out more. If you’ve received a call like this or know anybody who has, let me know. I’m particularly interested in who called and in what factual claims they made about the legal situation.