Because That's the Way the Game Is Played

27 August 2006

Blackboard Patent Case Appears in BusinessWeek Online, ABC News, USA Today, and Washington Post

Justin Pope, a writer for AP, has published an article on the Blackboard Patent case in BusinessWeek Online, Washington Post, ABC News, and USA Today:

"The patent, awarded to the Washington, D.C.-based company in January but announced last month, has prompted an angry backlash from the academic computing community, which is fighting back in techie fashion -- through online petitions and in a sprawling Wikipedia entry that Ecola Point by stelj. helps make its case."

Blackboard continues to repeat its spin that "We're not trying to put anyone out of business. We're not trying to hinder innovation. We're seeking a reasonable royalty." If Blackboard is after reasonable royalties, why did the company file a lawsuit against Desire2Learn as its first course of action? If Blackboard is after reasonable royalties, why is the company asking for treble damages against Desire2Learn for wilfull patent infrigement?

The most laughable quote in the article is Blackboard general counsel Matthew Small's claim that the company supports open source. "He says the company supports open source, and notes a Blackboard product called Building Blocks allows users to create their own systems off Blackboard's basic platform." We have some crummy APIs, therefore, we support open source. Gimme a break, dude.

1 From tatler.typepad.com/nose/ 29 August 2006 Comments

If Blackboard is after reasonable royalties, why is the company asking for treble damages against Desire2Learn for wilfull patent infrigement?"

Because that's the way the game is played: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=472901

Blackboard's patent on its 'invention' gives it the right to demand royalties, reasonable or not (and also of course to insist that others simply not use its 'invention') but its own self- interest should have ensured that its demands were not unreasonable. The objective of the patent game (for the patent holder) is to appropriate as much as possible of the value of the invention - I think a publicly owned company may actually be obliged to do so. That means asking for reasonable royalty payments from infringers because a) one doesn't want to drive one's source of revenue out of business and b) one doesn't want to risk losing one's patent in Court. Especially not one like this ;-)

Blackboard might've made unreasonable demands of course but under the circumstances I think it more likely that despite the *apparent* weakness of the patent, Desire2Learn has overestimated its chances of success. Given that software and business methods (and consequently this sort of education technology) are patentable subject matter, I don't really see anything either exceptional or exceptionable about Blackboard's actions and although there is in reality nothing reasonable about this situation it is not really Blackboard's fault. I would be surprised if Blackboard is not itself paying out a considerable amount in licensing fees to the owners of some equally egregious patents.

Posted by: P.L.Hayes | 29 August 2006 at 01:00 AM

Like you, I loved the "Building Blocks = Open Source" implication. I guess that means that PalmOS (to pick a random example) is also Open Source as well since they have APIs and anyone can develop to those APIs.

The path to interoperability and free exchange of innovation *is* for us to all to adopt and run Blackboard and then we can freely innovate by exchanging Building Blocks - the logic is completely obvious :)

Posted by: Charles Severance | 28 August 2006 at 02:58 PM

It's also in today's Wired News, via AP:

Patent Fight in Online Academia http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,71671-0.html?tw=wn_index_13

- Mike

Posted by: Mike @ Montreal | 28 August 2006 at 01:59 PM

2 From tatler.typepad.com/nose/ 29 August 2006