Slashdot Log In
Blackboard Patenting Educational Groupware
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Aug 02, 2006 08:36 AM
from the well-now-isn't-that-special dept.
from the well-now-isn't-that-special dept.
chizz writes "Online learning provider Blackboard announced the other day that it has patented the Learning Management System (LMS). The very same day it went after Desire2Learn for Patent infringement in a truly Salt Lake City kinda way. A great many educators are a bit shook up by this, and are stockpiling prior art all over the place. "
Related Stories
[+]
Blackboard Campus IDs: Security Thru Cease & Desist 853 comments
On Saturday night, Virgil and Acidus, two young security researchers, were scheduled to give a talk at
Interz0ne II
on security flaws they'd found in a popular ID card system for universities.
It's run by Blackboard, formerly by AT&T, and you may know it as
OneCard,
CampusWide,
or BuzzCard.
On Saturday, instead of the talk, attendees got to hear an Interz0ne
official read the
Cease and Desist letter
sent by corporate lawyers. The DMCA, among other federal laws
including the Economic Espionage Act, were given as the reasons for
shutting down the talk (but -- update -- see the P.P.S below). I spoke with Virgil this morning.
[+]
Desire2Learn Fights eLearning Patent 65 comments
Nordelius writes "Desire2Learn has responded to the patent infringement claim (PDF) cited by Blackboard Inc. regarding eLearning systems. They have argued that Blackboard was negligent in not submitting details of prior art with their patent application, and further alleged that the material described by the patent was documented in 1998 (PDF) by a collaborative international organization, IMSprogram.org, which was actually working with Blackboard at the time."
[+]
US Patent Office To Re-Examine Blackboard Patent 115 comments
Mr_5tein writes "Groklaw is reporting that the US Patent and Trademark Office has just ordered a re-examination of the e-learning patent owned by Blackboard Inc, thanks to a filing by the Software Freedom Law Center. SFLC's press release states, 'The Patent Office found that prior art cited in SFLC's request raises "a substantial new question of patentability" regarding all 44 claims of Blackboard's patent...' The SFLC explains that though such re-examinations may take a couple of years to complete, approximately '70% of re-examinations are successful in having a patent narrowed or completely revoked.'"
[+]
Developers: Blackboard's "Pledge" Not to Sue Open Source Software 84 comments
Another anonymous reader writes with a link to the Inside Higher Education site. Those folks are reporting on Blackboard's 'pledge' not to sue open source projects used by universities and colleges. The Blackboard patent on educational groupware filed last year has come under a lot of fire, with many organizations simply seeking an open-source alternative. This newest peace offering to higher education groups has the Sakai open source consortium more than a little bit nervous. If Blackboard meant to set people at ease, all it has managed to do was confirm to onlookers that it 'wants to keep its legal options open.' Blackboard insists that this new pledge affords universities a number of legal privileges, and is designed to make educators 'sleep easy at night.' Somehow, very few people seem reassured. Update: 02/02 17:34 GMT by Z : Bad first link fixed.
[+]
Blackboard Wins Patent Suit Against Desire2Learn 186 comments
edremy writes "Blackboard, the dominant learning management system (LMS) maker, has won its initial suit against Desire2Learn. Blackboard gets $3.1 million and can demand that Desire2Learn stop US sales. (We discussed Blackboard when the patent was issued in 2006) This blog provides background on the suit. Blackboard has been granted a patent that covers a single person having multiple roles in an LMS: for example, a TA might be a student in one class and an instructor in another. You wouldn't think something this obvious could even be patented, but so far it's been a very effective weapon for Blackboard, badly hurting Desire2Learn and generating a huge amount of worry for the few remaining commercial LMSs that Blackboard has not already bought, and open source solutions such as Moodle (Blackboard's pledge not to attack such providers notwithstanding)."
[+]
Blackboard Patent Invalidated By Appellate Court 142 comments
Arguendo writes "A federal appeals court ruled Monday that Blackboard Inc.'s patent on a learning management system is invalid in light of the inventors' own prior software product. We have previously discussed the patent and Blackboard's trial court victory against Desire2Learn. It's not completely over, but this is almost certainly the death knell for Blackboard's patent. If so inclined, you may read the appellate court's decision here (PDF) or on scribd."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Awful patent. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a patent so bad it looks like the EPO won't grant it. Which is really saying something.
Re:Awful patent. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think I stopped reading shortly after that point, it would have hurt too much to continue.
Parent
There are no good software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that there is no mechanism that can filter the very damaging software patents from the less-damaging ones. At least, as far as experience shows in the USA and Europe, any legal definition that allows some software patents can be systematically broadened to include them all.
The only barrier to the really damaging software patents - the ones that claim ownership of an entire software ecology - is a blanket ban on the patenting of software, period. In Europe this is called the "subject matter" criteria, which is the key barrier to software patents in Europe. Prior art, triviality, and industrial application (the other criteria) are hackable to mean anything one likes. Lawyers have also been hacking the subject matter, but it's harder, since the European Patent Convention clearly does not allow patents on computer programs. (The hack usually starts by saying, "ah, but we're not patenting the program, just the underlying methods...")
The Blackboard patent looks truly obvious, but that's not enough of an argument to invalidate it. One needs to prove it was unobvious when it was filed and that your prior art can be documented to before that date as well. I've seen in patent suits in Europe that this can be very difficult, even for well-funded firms. Once granted, a relevant patent has an even chance of surviving, no matter what you throw at it. Ask Microsoft... they've been at the sharp end often enough.
Eventually, we need to see a movement to ban the patenting of software in the USA, much like this movement already exists in Europe. The alternative is to see the software ecology get more and more subverted, to the point where small-to-medium firms cannot innovate any longer, which is a bad place to be in an information economy.
To those who say, "if it's a bad patent, fight it in court", please understand that being at the receiving end of such legal instruments is tantamount to being at the end of a large gun. Small firms cannot afford lawsuits, even frivoulous ones, and it's incredible that the USPTO should have turned into an accomplice and tool of such legalized extortions.
Who stands up for the small-to-medium IT firms?
Parent
It's not just the patent... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this sounds somewhat like a rant- I encourage you to try either of these systems. I believe you'll come away just as frustrated. The notion of these systems gaining, or even trying to gain a stranglehold is very depressing.
I hope that not only are these patents denied but that Blackboard and WebCT get tied up in litigation until they go Chapter 11. If any market should be supportive of Open Source, I think the on-line learning marketplace is a natural. Having Blackboard and WebCT dominate is not good for us.
Parent
Linux support: WAS: Re:It's not just the patent... (Score:4, Informative)
I would also point out before this becomes a "Blackboard hates Linux" thread, that Blackboard has always released its product for Linux and I believe most of their hosting business runs on Linux as well.
Parent
Prior art=all content management systems (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Prior art=all content management systems (Score:3)
Here's a pathetic example of the crap the USPO grants: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.html [freepatentsonline.com] (a method for swinging
Re:Prior art=all content management systems (Score:5, Informative)
then you probably could jam-through a patent for just about anything [uspto.gov]
Parent
ANother example (Score:5, Informative)
WebCT (Score:4, Informative)
I've just lost a lot of respect for these guys with this patent BS. Long live Moodle!
Stockpiling prior art? (Score:4, Interesting)
If they can prove in a court of law that there is prior art, I don't see what the fuss is all about. Whatever stupid patent the attacking company shows, it will be laughed out of court and will probably be declared null and void.
Of course, that's assuming the judge involved in this case still has functioning grey matter, which may be a bit too optmistic. Then again, SCO is in dire straits, so there is still hope...
One thing is certain though: this case proves, if that was still needed, that the US Patent Office does not have any grey matter left. I mean, another (fairly-obvious-sounding) patent that could be invalidated with prior art? How many of these exist out there "in the wild", to be used by rich b______s?
Re:Stockpiling prior art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Salt Lake City kinda way? (Score:4, Funny)
A side note about the infringement lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
But the suit itself is being filed in Texas, and the suit names statutes that give the court jurisdiction.
Does this mean they chose this court because it's run by Bushies who instinctively love monoplizers and hate entrepreneurs? Or is there another reason for this choice of venue?
In a logical world, you'd expect the lawsuit to be filed where one or the other of the companies has its HQ.
I know, it's not a logical world. The USPTO proves that. But this geographical silliness is another example of the general legal ludicrosities we USians now deal with instead of having sensible laws and courts.
Fah!
- Robin
Re:A side note about the infringement lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
The suit, like almost all recent patent suits, was filed in the E.D. of Texas because the district is a "rocket docket" - i.e. cases are quickly tried there. The E.D. Texas also has tremendous patent experience, as their judges have presided over several patent cases (which is rare in most other districts). The juries also tend to me more educated (and pro-patent/inventor) than in most other areas.
This has never been the rule or law in the U.S. - a federal suit can be filed anywhere where there is personal jurisdiction and venue. As the allegedly infringing products are probably offered for sale or sold in the E.D. of Texas, the requirements for jurisdiction and venue are likely easily met.
Suits are rarely brought where the defendant has a large presence because juries and judges always favor the hometown team (imagine Toyota suing Ford in Michigan).
Parent
Blackboard sucks. (Score:5, Interesting)
When released their Blackboard 6 software caused all kinds of trouble in time lost and support at my college, to the point where a Bb rep came out to apologize to IT and the instructors. One instructor stood up and demanded that Bb make reparations for money spent in lost time.
My college also uses them for student organizations. But I'll tell you, Google Groups and independent hosting makes for a more effective solution. For one, a Blackboard cluster doesn't share session data across servers--each server maintains session data locally, which means you can't use HTML links to point to resources within Blackboard, from within Blackboard. In fact, you can't hardlink to a Blackboard resource, period.
The discussion board software is designed to be reset after every semester, which means you have to delete and recreate a Blackboard module each time, which leads to more work for instructors. The semester-centric view also makes the discussion software clunky for student organizations, which only reset once per year, if at all. I have to sift through comments dating back to September of last year before I get to recent material. Plus, there's no way to archive and search the comments.
The announcement mechanism doesn't support RSS, or even--as far as I can find--a way to send out emails automatically when announcements are created.
I could go on...I've been bending this software to my needs for a few years now.
I wish I could put my name to this, but I won't. I'm a little too paranoid for that.
Mr. Moodle says: Don't worry! (Score:5, Interesting)
As a manager of a college's Open Source CMS (Score:5, Informative)
I can't imagine this isn't a long term strike against the Open Source LMSs out there. There's no real commercial competition anymore in the field with WebCT gone. Desire2Learn, Angel and the rest are ants under the feet of the Blackboard elephant, but Sakai and Moodle are getting real traction- the real buzz at EDUCAUSE isn't at the BB booth but at Sakai talks, the college just up the road dumped BB for Moodle this summer, etc.
I had a long conversation with some BB salesdroids last year and they more or less admitted that BB's long term future isn't their LMS, it's the OneCard system. They get a cut out of every purchase made with it, and it's a real cash cow.
Blackboard is such a piece of shit (Score:5, Interesting)
Scraping the bottom of the barrel (Score:5, Insightful)
Educational software makes me laugh (Score:4, Interesting)
I would venture to say that the vast majority of software marketed to schools/universities is pure crap. And the best part is, it's MASSIVELY overpriced, too, since most schools get government grants to buy this stuff (and, again, the people who approve these purchases generally have no idea what the stuff is worth).
Screw all of the educational software companies. They're leeches feeding of the ignorance of stupid administrators and pork-barrel funding.
Blackboard Admin (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm actually at the D2L user's conference now... (Score:5, Informative)
The CEO of D2L, John Baker, wrote this LMS while a grad student enrolled at the University of Guelph in Ontario Canada. The facts scream "prior art" and Blackboard really has no case IMHO. I think the strategy here, as John put it, is to sue D2L to a point where it'd be in D2L's best interest to avoid expensive litigation and just get taken over by Blackboard. The hidden backstory here is that Blackboard wants so badly to take over D2L but D2L doesn't want any part of that. So Blackboard takes the other, more scenic route: sue them into oblivion.
I can almost guarantee that Blackboard will lose this suit. The fact that D2L existed before Blackboard was even a gleam in the eye of its writer is 98% of the case.
In any way, John was so confident about his ability to win this suit he gave us all extra drink tickets!
Overblown patent scare (Score:5, Informative)
This patent will not matter much. I don't see any particular reason to worry about it and here's why (IANAL!):
1. The patent relies on 44 claims, most of which can easily be shown to be prior art. (Ironically, WebCT, which was bought out by BlackBoard might be used as a counterexample of prior art).
3. To violate the Patent you would have to be substantially equivalent [yahoo.com]. Essentially this means someone would have to substantially rely on Blackboard's look and feel for providing LMS services.
4. The patent heavily relies on the concept of "files" - like our old system, which used flat files for information management (no, we did not and could not develop for the then popular (1998-1999) Sun + Oracle combo -- too big and too expensive for us and most schools at the time). An LMS using a Relational Database may be sufficiently different enough in implementation.
5. The patent differention seems to be at this part:
"The present invention also enhances the prior art by providing a flexible infrastructure for colleges, universities, and other institutions wishing to facilitate on-line registration and tuition payment. More specifically, the present invention can accommodate different billing methods, including, but not limited to, billing on a per-credit-hour basis, and billing on a per-registrant basis."
So, unless you are looking to build a Blackboard clone using a flat-file data management system including an integrated payment system, I really don't see anything to fret about.
(Disclaimer - As I said above, I am not a lawyer, and I certainly would love to see a more sophisticated legal analysis).
Re:The real reason they're trying to patent this. (Score:4, Informative)
Why? It's not like there aren't already a lot [lon-capa.org] of highly capable [moodle.org] Open Source LMSs [dokeos.com] out there [dotlrn.org], some are even written in Java [sakaiproject.org].
Depending on your needs, any of these could work fine. We've been running on Dokeos for the past three years, and although our needs aren't high it's worked quite well.
Parent