While most folks paying attention to the Blackboard patent scandal have sympathy for Desire2Learn, I’m not sure how many people realize just how altruistic the company is being by fighting the patent. From a purely financial perspective, it is clearly in D2L’s interest to settle and pay a royalty, even though doing so would harm the rest of the community. I’d like to lay out exactly why I think Desire2Learn is doing an enormous public service and what we can all do to help ensure that their good behavior pays off in the marketplace.
Category: LMS & Learning Platforms
Everything you want to know about Learning Management Systems and whatever comes after them.
-
The Blackboard Patent Crisis at Two and a Half Weeks
While marveling the events of the last several weeks, Jim Farmer suggested that it might be worthwhile to pause and reflect back on the sequence of events. I thought that was a good idea, so here it is. I don’t claim that it is any sense a definitive history. To the contrary, it’s just my personal experience of the situation. But it taught me something, so I thought it might be worth sharing. (more…)
-
Is Prometheus a Big Problem for Blackboard?
I’ve been thinking lately about the fact that almost none of the prior art listed in the Wikipedia entry was in Blackboard’s patent filing. It’s remarkable, really, since they are legally obligated to list any potential prior art of which they are aware at the time of filing. Failing to do so would constitute fraud. This is just one of several ways in which the application appears to be very sloppy.
I was thinking about this again when I received an email from a colleague pointing out that Prometheus is not yet listed in our prior art documentation effort. And it looks like Prometheus could present a really big legal problem for Blackboard. (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…)
-
One Line of Argument Against the Blackboard Patent
Several folks on the Sloan-C listserv have raised a strong second line of argument in the Blackboard prior art fight. In addition to identifying specific LMS precursors that had most or all of the functionality outlined in the claims, we should be building the case that LMS’s were directly and consciously copied from and evolved out of more generic groupware. In other words, once you you have a generic groupware system with groups, roles, permissions, and collaborative tools, it was obvious to the educational community that groups could be classes and that tool that education-specific tools such as a test engine, a grade book, and a homework drop box should be added. (more…)
-
An Example of How the Blackboard Patent Could Chill Innovation
Blackboard’s General Counsel Matthew Small has said that their patent and lawsuit is “not about hindering innovation.” It’s important that we not allow this claim to go unchallenged. I’d like to start gathering concrete examples of initiatives that are beneficial to the educational community and could be directly harmed by Blackboard’s actions. I’ll start. The first example I can think of is the developing IMS Common Cartridge standard.
-
First Mainstream Press Article about the Blackboard Patent
The Kitchener Record, Desire2Learn’s hometown newspaper, is running a story on the patent infringement suit. With luck, more mainstream media outlets will begin reporting on it soon.
I’d like to address one comment in the article by Blackboard’s General Counsel, Matthew Small. He said,
This is not about reducing competition, it’s not about hindering innovation, and it is something we think is in line with our duty to our clients to protect their investment in us as well as to protect the investment we’ve made in our technology.
There are a number of ways in which this statement is off-base. (more…)